Politics is not Science

[swansont]

The larger question I was trying to ask is if we have any recourse when a member shares an opinion, is asked a simple, "Why?" and refused to answer. They just keep repeating their opinion, and never provide a single reason why they hold it. That's not allowed in the other forums. Are we to consider the Politics board a sovereign nation where any opinion can be shared, and requests to clarify it ignored?

 

I think more context is needed to answer this. Preaching/soapboxing is against the rules, but merely stating an opinion is not. I might have a hard time understanding why someone would state an opinion without being willing to discuss it on a discussion board, but that's not inherently against the rules that I can see. It depends on what is being discussed.

[JillSwift]

I think more context is needed to answer this. Preaching/soapboxing is against the rules, but merely stating an opinion is not. I might have a hard time understanding why someone would state an opinion without being willing to discuss it on a discussion board, but that's not inherently against the rules that I can see. It depends on what is being discussed.

If I may, iNow...

 

 

The problem is what gets asserted but not discussed. As in:

 

A: I like X, because of Y, Z and N.

B: X is bad.

A: Why is X bad?

B: Because X is bad.

A: You said that already. I think X is good because of Y, Z and N. Why do you think X is bad?

B: I understand your Z, Y, and N. It's just that X is bad.

A: ... *headdesk*

 

Its something that happens in political and moral discussions quite a lot, because sometimes (especially in moral issues, of which politics is riddled) the person making the assertion hasn't the first clue why they have that opinion, but it's is a deeply held opinion none the less. In some cases, questioning the validity or reasoning of such a deeply held opinion really gets the opinion holder riled up emotionally.

 

Sadly, this shuts discussion down.

 

And, like iNow, I have no idea what to do when confronted by it, and it does seem contrary to a science forum's theme, even if it's not actually against the rules.

[Mr Skeptic]

The larger question I was trying to ask is if we have any recourse when a member shares an opinion, is asked a simple, "Why?" and refused to answer. They just keep repeating their opinion, and never provide a single reason why they hold it. That's not allowed in the other forums. Are we to consider the Politics board a sovereign nation where any opinion can be shared, and requests to clarify it ignored?

 

The correct response to your question would be, "It just is," at least for a "proper" opinion. Consider if you ask yourself the question "why", repeatedly, eventually you will reach a [set of] opinion that you simply hold but cannot justify, such as a preference for rationality, or loop back to a previous statement.

 

In my opinion, the word "opinion" is an overly broad term which includes aspects that have no place in a discussion board, such as factual claims that one holds without evidence. Instead, I would recommend such words as "premise", "value", "preference", "factual claim", "educated guess", "inductive conclusion" and similar words that are narrower and thus have a more clear status. When there is disagreement about such it is much clearer what needs to happen than when one of the above is labeled "opinion". Also the holder of such is far less likely to feel insulted if someone rejects his "premise" than if one rejects his "opinion" and resulting discussion will be more productive.

 

I suggest that the rules for politics be modified so as to encourage "opinion" be replaced by clearer words, for the above reasons.

[jackson33]

Far be it for me, to try and explain politics to the experts, but I'll try from my viewpoint;

 

1. Obama and McCain, each campaigned for the Presidency in 2008. Each person probably made comments on no less than 200 subjects/issues, each of which in importance was different by degree to each one of the 160M registered voters.

 

2. On a public forum, whether it be 99% Liberal or Conservative site, what will be considered valid evaluation/interpretation/OPINION, by either the administration/moderators and/or registered posters are going to be near opposites.

 

Points of 1 and 2....No two people will agree on any issue at exactly the same level.

 

3. Science oriented forums were designed to discuss 'Political Science' theory and practice of politics, not necessarily the issues with in politics. Of course few would ever discuss the practice, but ARE interested in the issues.

 

Political science is a social science concerned with the theory and practice of politics and the description and analysis of political systems and political behavior. It is often described as the study of politics defined as "who gets what, when and how".[1] Political science has several subfields, including: political theory, public policy, national politics, international relations, and comparative politics.[/Quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science

 

Personal viewpoint; On each of the Science oriented forums that have or had or introduced 'Political Science', 'Law' or 'Religion' the tendency has been to leave them excused from both moderation and content to the limits of civil discourse. One long gone 'political issue' forum used the five star rating system for each post, until it became the source to display frustration or opposition to the various posters (would go from 0-5 Stars in a matter of minutes, several times. Only here (currently) and one other forum that I know of has negative reputation points (another means to show contempt or approval other than posting) or any system been used and in that forum and on this one, it's used in the same manner or by those that become frustrated or are using the system to enhance their arguments. Most casual posters if not all, never use this means of showing contempt or in fact even aware of the system, even here when they do figure it out, will first question the value, leave or just leave in the first place. As for banning, it's almost unheard of anyplace for other than spamming, language or just being outright and obviously obnoxious. Although there are hundreds of forums, now on line, in any field or in general discussion, most of those that HAD used verbal scoldings, over moderation or any means of censorship are long gone from the scene or have very few participating posters.I think many of your current moderating force, will tell you this, if in fact your not aware of effects....

 

One disturbing comment, made toward the end of the 'closed thread' was the calling of someone at 3AM and an apparent debate going on among moderators/administration. I would hope the calling party is not a staff member and the staff should have a leader. What ever caused the disturbance, could easily be stopped and up to that person to get it stopped.

 

 

 

Mr. S; No personal post I have ever read on this forum has been outright bigotry. inferred, implied or stated, IMO, however there are going to be opinions stated, based on bigotry or some unacceptable premise falling under 'political correctness'. Asking then to elaborate on an opinion, is like asking a person, in some cases, to venture into a realistic view (unacceptable) of what maybe the cause for that opinion. For instance, I do feel Male Homosexuality has some health risk, should be included the discussion and has implications on many issues other than SSM. In fairness, it's practiced in only 20-30% of Male relations, casual or otherwise, but to elaborate on the other means of transmission could lead to perceived bigotry, especially if pushed to examples

[padren]

In some cases, questioning the validity or reasoning of such a deeply held opinion really gets the opinion holder riled up emotionally.

 

Sadly, this shuts discussion down.

 

And, like iNow, I have no idea what to do when confronted by it, and it does seem contrary to a science forum's theme, even if it's not actually against the rules.

 

I'd propose that we should accept someone who feels their opinion doesn't need to be rational, but at the same time expect them to take a back seat in the discussion.

 

There are two factors:

 

1) The person's opinion

2) The merits of the opinion and why others should find it compelling.

 

If we can accept a person's opinion as their opinion, yet remain steadfast they have not made a case for their opinion to be compelling in any form of debate or shared discussion - we can move on. If they continue to bring up their opinion (like "But I said I just think that is wrong cuz I don't think x deserves y, it just doesn't") then they are stifling the debate.

 

A debate is about sharing ideas and conveying their merits that are then critiqued, defended or refined. I think we can all agree that in any open discussion this is the only way to advance any kind of topic in a meaningful way. If this was a religious forum, perhaps we could just advance the authority from which an opinion came from, but it's not - so all we have are the merits.

 

We can take for example, a hot topic like abortion:

 

Someone may say it's their opinion that life starts at conception.

 

We ask them why.

 

They provide some pseudo-answers, which are challenged, until ultimately they become defensive because they have a right to their opinion. At this point I think it's fair to back off them, as long as they back off using their opinion to sway the debate.

 

They may have a secondary opinion, such as to the legality of abortion, which would be based on the idea that if their opinion is assumed accurate then it should be illegal. We may then debate with them as to whether or not it is a wise idea to allow strong opinions that are not backed by merit to sway public political policy - and it may get a little hotter again. The thing is - they may genuinely believe that (a) since an opinion without a logical framework can be right and (b) if that opinion is right it could have a large impact on what policy is right or wrong © therefore you cannot always use reason to determine the best policy.

 

Many people in a science forum may object to that idea - mostly due to (what I call at least) the "white noise" argument, that it creates too many such scenarios and they are more likely to be wrong than right, and you could even have an opposite opinion that is unsubstantiated that would suggest the exact opposite policy.

 

Ultimately, they may still feel that their original opinion (life at conception) is sound and still feel abortion should be illegal and nothing we say can really change that. At that point, we should gracefully accept their opinions as their opinions and respect that.

 

However, the moment the thread continues and others are discussing the topic, if that person continues to interject arguments (logical or otherwise) that are based on the axiom of the opinion they could not build a case for - they are disrupting the thread. They can continue to participate and point out general logical fallacies that are tied to the opinions shared and backed up, or point out contradictions in facts others may bring up against the other side, but if they continue to use their opinion as the basis it is repetitious and disruptive.

 

We should try to deal with people like that by saying "I understand your opinion on the matter and I respect that, but we are trying to discuss the various merits in this issue, and you have been unable to provide such. Since we respect your right to feel as you do, please respect our right to disagree and continue to discuss the other opinions that have their own merits that are being debated right now"

 

If they continue to be disrespectful a moderator should warn them in my opinion. If they continue to propose logical fallacies to defend their opinion as a logically defendable argument (such as life starts at conception) but are really just pulling stuff out of thin air that slows the discussion and due to personal bias is so poorly structured that it is time consuming to dig through (on par with your average PS&S thread) then a moderator should either warn them, or split it into a "arguments in favor and against the idea that life starts at conception" thread.

 

As regulars here, I imagine (though don't really do it enough) it's fair to PM a moderator and let them know it seems a thread is getting into that sort of territory, and they may want to keep an eye on it or split it in such a manner. It's worth noting of course moderators may not see things the same way as we do as we all can get caught up in a discussion and be blindered by our point of view, and respect that even if they disagree (even if we think they are very wrong) we a) can't always expect ourselves to be right and b) can't always expect them to be right and respect the fact they have a difficult job.

 

In short - we need some ideas on how to deal with opinions and how to keep discussions moving. Since we deal with advancing topics and share information, it's sensible to include the merits that an opinion is based on to determine the veracity of the opinion as it enters the "collective discussion" for the purpose of swaying others.

 

 

 

For the record, we often go by "opinion" in politics in ways that are critical and their are no other options. When a diplomat returns from overseas they may warn the government that they "do not trust those guys" and they do not think we should take their word on a number of issues, we often give that weight. If the diplomat was required to base that opinion on tangible merits, their contribution would be very negligible to the discussion of whether to trust those people - you just can't easily break a "gestalt feeling" such as gut reaction distrust. It is far more open to abuse (subversive motives of the diplomat) and far more open to false basis (the diplomat's prejudices, fears and such) but it is the best tool we have even now in those sorts of situations.

 

Likewise, such political discussions are not very good for a forum - if we discuss (should we trust Joe when he says Jack is a bad guy) we'll be debating all kinds of merits to Joe's authority and not his opinion, that can at best decide if it's rational to accept his appeal to authority argument or not. I just mention it because it's worth noting that not everything lends itself to rational discussion as the best means of determining truth.

[swansont]

If I may, iNow...

 

 

The problem is what gets asserted but not discussed. As in:

 

A: I like X, because of Y, Z and N.

B: X is bad.

A: Why is X bad?

B: Because X is bad.

A: You said that already. I think X is good because of Y, Z and N. Why do you think X is bad?

B: I understand your Z, Y, and N. It's just that X is bad.

A: ... *headdesk*

 

Its something that happens in political and moral discussions quite a lot, because sometimes (especially in moral issues, of which politics is riddled) the person making the assertion hasn't the first clue why they have that opinion, but it's is a deeply held opinion none the less. In some cases, questioning the validity or reasoning of such a deeply held opinion really gets the opinion holder riled up emotionally.

 

Sadly, this shuts discussion down.

 

And, like iNow, I have no idea what to do when confronted by it, and it does seem contrary to a science forum's theme, even if it's not actually against the rules.

 

It depends on whether "X is bad" is an opinion or assertion. If B is saying that only as it relates to him/herself, then it's an opinion. But if B is claiming that X is generally bad, applying to other people without regard to their opinions, then it's an assertion.

[Pangloss]

One of my big concerns is differentiating opinion from the assertion masquerading as opinion. I think this can be a difficult thing, and posters need to get get into the habit of clarifying their statements, because this can be a source of friction and confusion, when people interpret a statement in different ways.

 

This is a good point that I cannot remember anyone making before, especially with regard to clarification.

 

 

However' date=' the moment the thread continues and others are discussing the topic, if that person continues to interject arguments (logical or otherwise) that are based on the axiom of the opinion they could not build a case for - they are disrupting the thread. They can continue to participate and point out general logical fallacies that are tied to the opinions shared and backed up, or point out contradictions in facts others may bring up against the other side, but if they continue to use their opinion as the basis it is repetitious and disruptive.

 

We should try to deal with people like that by saying "I understand your opinion on the matter and I respect that, but we are trying to discuss the various merits in this issue, and you have been unable to provide such. Since we respect your right to feel as you do, please respect our right to disagree and continue to discuss the other opinions that have their own merits that are being debated right now"

 

If they continue to be disrespectful a moderator should warn them in my opinion.

[/quote']

 

This makes a lot of sense to me.

 

 

Here's an open question: Aren't we just talking here about who gets the last word?

 

And if that's the case, why is getting the last word important? Does that mean something? Does it "establish the community's opinion?" Does it "teach the oddball that his/her opinion is freaky and not respectable?" Does it inform newcomers what opinions will or won't be tolerated here? Is THAT the point? If not, why worry about it?

 

If it's not about last-wording, then where IS the line drawn between a successfully-concluded open discussion and an endless opinion war?

[iNow]

Thanks to Jill and Padren for your posts above. You certainly seem to grasp my intent here.

 

 

Here's an open question: Aren't we just talking here about who gets the last word?

No, at least, I'm not.

 

Following Jill's lead, let me provide an example.

 

I enter a discussion about women's suffrage.

I tell everyone one that I'm okay with women's suffrage, but it should not be called voting.

Other participants ask me why I think their actions should not be called voting, as it's the same thing men do.

Instead of answering their question, or instead of having enough integrity to openly state that "I really don't know, it's just how I feel," I instead start asking others why it's a problem... I divert the onus on to them, still never taking the responsibility to help others understand my position.

Others give reasons why the actions of woman should be called voting, and repeat the question to me... "Why should it be called anything else?"

 

At this point, we keep going around in circles, as I keep saying, "I just think it should be called something different. Your view is no better than mine, so stop pretending like it is."

 

Others respond, "We've told you why we think it should be called "voting" even though women are the ones doing it. Why can't you provide a reason to call it something different? Can you at least make an argument as to why it should not be called voting? What value does it bring to call it something different? What is your reason for suggesting this? Why is this something we should do."

 

Then, I respond, "Because it's different, that's why."

Again, "Different how?"

Me: "It just is."

 

Back and forth, back and forth... And nobody has held my feet to the fire and made me back up what I've said.

 

 

I propose that... if a person hits that submit button, their post is fair game. If they put forth an opinion, and people ask what is their reasoning for that opinion, they must do one of two things. They must either address the question and offer some reasons, or they must openly concede that they are unable and apologize for wasting everyone's time. If they continue repeating the "opinion" and fail to address requests at clarification, they should be punished.

 

As I recently mentioned, if it's a political opinion, why are we treating it any different than a kid who comes in with the "opinion" that the speed of light is instantaneous? We ask the kid why they think this... If they refuse, they get punished, and eventually tossed out if they don't ship up and actually respond to the questions being put to him. I'm simply looking for some consistency here, or at least clarification that the Politics board is a free-for-all sovereign territory where we can say any damned thing we want and nobody will make us support it because it's protected as an "opinion."

 

Offering an opinion and refusing to support it does nothing to further the discussions and debates we have here. Share your opinion, but when you do so, you also need to respond to questions and/or criticisms of it. Repetition alone brings nothing to the table but exasperation.

[JillSwift]

It depends on whether "X is bad" is an opinion or assertion. If B is saying that only as it relates to him/herself, then it's an opinion. But if B is claiming that X is generally bad, applying to other people without regard to their opinions, then it's an assertion.

But... this is politics - all opinions head toward becoming assertions.

 

Seriously, within politics the two are intertwined. "I prefer X" all to often gets an addendum: "And you should, too."

[The Bear's Key]

iNow, padren offered a good step for addressing when people can't back up their stuff, not having the luxury of constant repetition of it. At least I think it's what he said.

 

We ask them why.

 

They provide some pseudo-answers, which are challenged, until ultimately they become defensive because they have a right to their opinion. At this point I think it's fair to back off them, as long as they back off using their opinion to sway the debate.

Very interesting. We should certainly be able to formulate a standard mechanism for that kind of dealing with unsupported opinions and the replies back.

 

Ultimately, they may still feel that their original opinion (life at conception) is sound and still feel abortion should be illegal and nothing we say can really change that. At that point, we should gracefully accept their opinions as their opinions and respect that.

 

However, the moment the thread continues and others are discussing the topic, if that person continues to interject arguments (logical or otherwise) that are based on the axiom of the opinion they could not build a case for - they are disrupting the thread. They can continue to participate and point out general logical fallacies that are tied to the opinions shared and backed up, or point out contradictions in facts others may bring up against the other side, but if they continue to use their opinion as the basis it is repetitious and disruptive.

Same there. A consistent mechanism with laid-out brief points would give the mods a solidly detailed way of approaching that specific problem.

 

 

And if that's the case, why is getting the last word important? Does that mean something? Does it "establish the community's opinion?" Does it "teach the oddball that his/her opinion is freaky and not respectable?" Does it inform newcomers what opinions will or won't be tolerated here? Is THAT the point? If not, why worry about it?

The point is likely for members and readers on the lurk to not take the statement as having been accepted. A viewer's impression might be that everyone agrees, since no one countered, thus possibly lending it an air of credibility.

 

That's why padren's idea seems a good fix, so no one's belaboring an unsupported opinion and no one's repeatedly challenging it. Also, doesn't hurt that a likely result is people would investigate their claims more often -- always a good habit

[padren]

If it's not about last-wording, then where IS the line drawn between a successfully-concluded open discussion and an endless opinion war?

It's not the last word usually, but (rarely, imo) it can devolve into that when respect erodes.

 

I think what appears to be "last word" is really just restating what one person feels has not really been challenged, and the other person repeating what they felt was an easy defeating rebuttal - which really is just poor communication.

 

It does take some discipline and self-checking on the part of the posters: the sort that PS&S is known for...lacking. If the opinions are backed by arguments, and the arguments are being discussed in a non-cyclical manner where progress is being made then it is headed in an acceptable direction. Progress in my mind is:

 

a) a clarification of statements: Often we will say something, and it will be challenged mostly because of ambiguity. A discussion in which the argument becomes more clear is a nice progression as it may end up on a point where both parties agree to disagree or hit a point of clarification where both parties realize they are talking about the same thing.

 

b) data is challenged: data is often cited as grounds for an assertion, and it can be exhaustive but still fruitful to challenge and go back on forth on the quality and implications of the data.

 

c) implications are challenged: regardless of whether some data is valid, the implications that lead to a conclusion and subsequent assertion (that backs an opinion)

 

As long as progress is made where agreement is recognized on clarifications, data, and implications then the discussion is clearly advancing. One of the biggest problems is recursion - arguments jump into sub arguments and on and on which can lead to progress overall but can also be as bad as going in circles, making the halting problem look like child's play.

It may take a lot of recursion before agreement is recognized, or (the other halting factor) two parties agree that the elements have been broken down to components so small that they differ purely on the basis of untestable opinions, and both agree to disagree.

 

I think some courtesies that may help are:

 

1) take the time to recognize points of agreement - it's easy to think it's apparent in a post, but it may not be as obvious to others. If it's a heavily active thread some parties may be skimming pretty lightly, and not realize agreement on a point has been achieved... and they may jump in with a counter-argument (often a weak one) that restarts contention not because their conclusion is opposed, but the manner in which they get there is.

 

2) Take time to consider whether clarification is required. One of my favorite debating partners and I (sadly, she moved away) would routinely start at polar ends of arguments only to arrive at a more nuanced "grand unified argument" that encompassed both, or at worst a proper understanding of the opposing views where we both saw the other as having a proper place, but respectfully disagreed on exactly where the lines that delineated those "proper places" are. It's actually quite satisfying to be able to start with "WTF??" and end up saying "You know, I know you are a lot more of a Libertarian than I am, but I totally get why you feel that way" and have the feeling mutual on both sides. The key to respectfully disagreeing though really comes from understanding how someone logically gets to where they have their stance, even if it's not the stance you would come to. To get there, you have to get past all the issues of believing they got to their stances due to flawed arguments, willful ignorance, philisophical crutches and the like.

 

3) Be clear when you feel your assertions have been defeated, when your opinions are challenged enough to make you want to "reconsider them" (but no one should expect that to be an instant process) and when you just feel you cannot be a good enough advocate for your opinion even if you feel someone, somewhere would be and you aren't ready to give up on it yet. Like I said before, when it comes to the last part - don't keep kicking it into the debate if you don't feel you can be it's advocate. There is no shame in acknowledging that. You may hold an opinion because someone you respect does too, and they know the issues inside and out. That's a fair reason, but doesn't lend itself to contributing in a debate as it holds no value to anyone else. Acknowledge you aren't the best advocate and move on, keep reading and perhaps later you will be.

[Pangloss]

I agree with this:

 

Offering an opinion and refusing to support it does nothing to further the discussions and debates we have here. Share your opinion, but when you do so, you also need to respond to questions and/or criticisms of it. Repetition alone brings nothing to the table but exasperation.

 

But I'm afraid you lost me here:

 

If they put forth an opinion, and people ask what is their reasoning for that opinion, they must do one of two things. They must either address the question and offer some reasons, or they must openly concede that they are unable and apologize for wasting everyone's time. If they continue repeating the "opinion" and fail to address requests at clarification, they should be punished.

 

Especially with this:

 

We ask the kid why they think this... If they refuse, they get punished, and eventually tossed out if they don't ship up and actually respond to the questions being put to him.

 

 

 

But I am down with much of what padren is saying, which I recognize is coming from the same sentiment.

 

Progress in my mind is:

 

a) a clarification of statements: Often we will say something' date=' and it will be challenged mostly because of ambiguity. A discussion in which the argument becomes more clear is a nice progression as it may end up on a point where both parties agree to disagree or hit a point of clarification where both parties realize they are talking about the same thing.

 

b) data is challenged: data is often cited as grounds for an assertion, and it can be exhaustive but still fruitful to challenge and go back on forth on the quality and implications of the data.

 

c) implications are challenged: regardless of whether some data is valid, the implications that lead to a conclusion and subsequent assertion (that backs an opinion)[/quote']

 

And:

 

I think some courtesies that may help are:

 

1) take the time to recognize points of agreement ...

 

2) Take time to consider whether clarification is required. ...

 

3) Be clear when you feel your assertions have been defeated ...

 

Edited for brevity, but those were some great examples.

 

I'm not entirely clear if padren is suggesting changes or if he's saying that we're actually successful even if we only CHALLENGE the opinion-holder (Sisyphus is really good at this, though I have to say budullewraagh was the all-time SFN champion at being cool with simply having raised a question).

 

But either way it's an interesting discussion and it should continue. Speaking only for myself, I am open to change and suggestions for different approaches here. I welcome the input, and have long felt this discussion to be overdue.