He's not saying you don't have "right to your own opinion"; he's saying you can't fall back on "it's my opinion" when someone refutes you with a sound argument.
And has nothing to do with who's the expert. He had a whole chapter dedicated to the fact that an argument is right or wrong based on the argument, NOT the arguer.
Also addressed putting different and false arguments in the mouths of others so you can "defeat" them...you ought to re-read those because that's exactly what you're doing.
Whyte does often put strawmen arguments into the mouths of those he wishes to pretend he has defeated in argument.
In Whyte's example where he puts 'I have a right to my opinion' into the mouth of his antagonist the argument is about something which *neither* person can know - the motivation of a person whose genuine thoughts are not available to mortal human beings. Both Jack and Jill are talking about their opinions, and neither can 'refute' the other on this topic.
@proudfootz Thanks for reply, but you misunderstand my comment. I'm saying that YOU are putting an argument into Whyte's mouth (committing straw man). Whyte never says "an expert opinion is always right and you can't have an opinion". Whyte's point is: one can't fall back on "it's my opinion" if someone presents one with a sound refuting argument. In fact, Whyte spent much of book arguing that whether or not you're an "expert" is irrelevent compared to whether or not your argument is true.
Perhaps I go too far - but as explained in the video the invented argument between Jack and Jill is one in which Jack is supposedly compelled to 'convert' to Jill's opinion because he has no answer to her arguments and dodges this with reference to his right to his opinion.
Likewise if a Mormon missionary comes to my door and I have not the expertise to answer his arguments I am compelled to convert?
No, I retain my right to my opinion even if I can't 'refute' other's opinions.
Good point! Made me rethink this. I don't think Whyte says because you're personally unable to refute an argument, that argument must be true...which I agree is silly. I think Whyte's point is that "my right to my opinion" should not be confused with refutation. Your right to your opinion (Mormonism is not your preferred religion) doesn't disprove Mormonism.
Also, I think the point applies when people claim "opinion" on objective issues, not subjective issues (religion or art).
You're right and wrong at the same time. It's not that we need to concede to the ideas of experts, it's that we should know enough about logic to concede when it is logical to do so. I believe the point is that we can't talk out of our asses and expect the opinion formed to be anything close to reasonable. It's more or less an issue of trusting any given expert. Experts aren't experts because they're smarter than other people, it's because they have an immense base of knowledge on a subject.
I agree that Whyte's argument is misinterpreted in this video's analysis. Whyte is absolutely not saying that people must surrender their opinions to the hands of experts. His point is that an opinion is not necessarily valid simply because it exists. A person that recklessly defies logic cannot be forced to change their opinion, but that does not make the opinion a valid one (i.e. it is not an opinion that should be treated the same as others simply because it exists).
The way the phrase 'right to one's opinion' is used in the English language is *not* meaning 'my opinion is right because it exists' (as apparently Whyte apparently wants us to believe).
He is using equivocation if that is the case.
In the example Whyte uses *both* Jill and Jack have opinions about something neither one can *know* the truth of.
Do they have 'equal right' to hold those opinions? Or are they *equally* to blame for having opinions?
@proudfootz In the case of the disagreement between Jack and Jill, if Jack says "I have the right to my opinion", Jack is only changing the subject and not advancing the analysis of the topic. Whyte's point is that it is a meaningless change of topic used by individuals not interested in (or incapable of) advancing the discussion. In other words, it's a statement that has no place in a meaningful discussion and a person should be aware of this. The statement is completely useless.
@proudfootz Yes, the statement signals that Jack wants to end the debate, as he has run out of relevant statements and now must change the subject to talk about his rights. If Jack had a real interest in either persuading Jill or being persuaded based on evidence and reason, he would continue the debate. A failure to resolve a debate is always the fault of the one who is no longer able to respond with substance, evidence and reason. Ending a debate does not mean that no correct position exists.
@LaborHours Therefore, Jack saying "I have the right to my opinion" means that he lacks the interest and/or the ability to either persuade or be persuaded. It has nothing to due with the facts, evidence or reason surrounding the original debate. Do not make the mistake of believing that it was not possible to advance the discussion. That is an error in reasoning. It was possible to advance the discussion, but Jack chose not to.
@proudfootz At no point have I or Whyte said that a person is obligated to persist in a debate. You are also incorrect in saying that Jack's statement means that neither participant was able to persuade the other. It does not mean that at all. And, your statement about Jack implying correctness through his statement is irrelevant. Finally, you are not at fault if you choose to end a debate. The error is in believing that the debate could not be advanced. Don't end by talking about your rights.
In Whyte's story neither Jill nor Jack persuaded the other. Is that not correct? The 'right to one's opinion' is only mentioned under those circumstances. It is never used as a part of the argument.
"If Jack had a real interest in either persuading Jill or being persuaded based on evidence and reason, he would continue the debate."
Sounds to me like you think they should continue to 'persist in a debate', or whoever gets the 'last word' is the winner by default.
@proudfootz Jack's statement about his rights is useless whether it's a part of the argument or not. If he wants to end the discussion, he should do it some other way (e.g. "I have to go now"). As to whether Jack should persist in the debate, that's up to Jack. It doesn't matter at all to me as he is fictional. Do you find Jack's statement to be useful in some way? We've already seen it used to end a debate, but it's a very silly way to do it.Tell me the purpose of Jack's statement of his right?
@proudfootz Not only is the statement unnecessary and irrelevant, but also quite meaningless. If Jack wants to smooth over the interaction with Jill, I would suggest complementing her shoes.
@proudfootz It means you're finished with the discussion, yes? Here are some things you could have said instead making this useless statement: "I appreciate the thoughtful discussion," "it's been a lively and stimulating exchange," "good debate, I appreciate you sharing your ideas" or even "it's been a pleasure." These statements are meaningful. Yours was not. Try one next time for a much better close to a conversation. You're welcome.
It seems like you misunderstood Whyte's argument. If the evidence conflicts with your "opinion", you should adjust your "opinion" to match the evidence (that is a truism of intellectual honesty). Whyte argues that people usually invoke the "right to their opinion" to shield their opinions from rational scrutiny; that is the real crime against a democracy. However, Whyte has also argued that people have the right to EXPRESS their opinion. (cont.)
@drumpler1 By giving people a "right to their opinion", you are prohibiting them from doing anything that could change their mind (i.e., by offering a conflicting view, etc.). For example, if it were true someone had a right to their opinion, and they said that they believe it is okay to be racist, then for me to point out the problems with racism would violate that right. Whyte is contesting the absurdity of such thinking.
Why should recognizing the right to one's opinion prohibit changing one's opinion?
I don't think using the phrase as it is commonly used puts an end to all debate. People often say it when they are *unconvinced* by someone who's been trying to change it. They are basically saying 'you have your opinion and I have mine because you haven't persuaded me'.
I'd say having an opinion is a fundamental feature of being human, and recognizing that is the basis of any kind of meaningful freedom.
I may have misunderstood, sure. As an empiricist one's beliefs and opinions should be held keeping in mind new evidence can possibly change them. That's hardly a controversial thought.
I agree people should be willing to reconsider their opinions.
I agree we should have the right to express our opinions - but hard to square the circle of 'you have no right to an opinion, but you can express that opinion you have no right to hold.' It seems self-contradictory.
I can't understand why you fail to understand the right to think for oneself.
Imagine an election - you have an opinion who should win the office.
That's what your vote is - an expression of your opinion.
What would happen if someone said - "rightwing52000 has no right to an opinion - we should just throw this out. Or better yet, let's change it to who I think should win."
Does that constitute a violation of your right to choose (e.g. have your own opinion)?
I guess it comes down to what we mean by 'respect' - no one has to *agree* with your opinion, but neither can anyone take it away from you. It's a part of who you are.
In a democratic society you have the right to your opinion and the right to express it. Democracy can't function without it. The ballot box is one way of expressing your opinion of who among the choices you are offered should rule over you.
The right to one's opinion is the right to think for oneself.
@proudfootz no it is not just my BS opinion. The only thing AETruth are certified in is certified mentally insane. They have no education if they believe WTC was controlled demo. And they sound like fucking idiots spewing out all the bullshit that they do with no facts to back up any of the shit they claim.
You seem to think all architects and engineers are insane - but actually they train to know about building construction - a subject I doubt you know the first thing about.
@proudfootz and more BS from you. As I have already covered AETruth at 1400 (not all structural engineers) are less than one percent of one percent of the engineers worldwide that do not support the fact that fire and damage caused the collapse of the towers. If more than 99% of professional experts support and prove fire then it clearly proves AETruth which offers no facts to support their own theory is not correct. Yet AETruth still "argue" therefore they are uneducated deluded idiots.
@proudfootz (continued) verify the 99%. US Dept of Labour states there are 1,700,000 engineers and architects working in the US. 1400 of 1,700,000 is less than one percent of one percent (about 0.08%) that agree with this bullshit. The other 99% agree fire caused the collapse. And your 1400 is worldwide add worldwide engineers and architects that disagree with your bullshit and your minority becomes even smaller. You are a tiny group of deluded fucking idiots.
@proudfootz no you and Gage and your pitiful band of "truthers" are the idiots that make up bullshit. You have failed to provide one fact to back up your bullshit theory.
@proudfootz I have proven that AETruth is just a tiny little band of pitiful deluded idiots. And you are part of it making you a pitiful deluded idiot.
@proudfootz (continued) and no I do not think ALL architects and engineers are insane. I never made that claim however in typical truther style you jumped to that bullshit conclusion and made up a story and tried to misquote me (typical of you assholes) I clearly stated AETruth are fucking deluded idiots and they are less than one percent of one percent of engineers. You fucking lying sack of shit.
You said all these architects and engineers are only certified to be insane - but they are certified to build buildings (unlike you). So you see where a normal person can be confused by the gobbledygook you write.
Why don't you take a deep breath and go for a wak on the grounds, then nurse will come with your meds and you'll feel better.
@proudfootz no I do not state that all engineers and architects are insane. I have written that all AETruthers (all truthers in general also) are deluded uneducated fucking idiots. you dumb fuck. And your response failed to provide a single fact to prove your bullshit theory. ahahaha you fucking loser.
Harry Anslinger, Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics said: "Marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its user’s insanity, criminality, and death."
A pharmacologist at Temple University who did experiments with dogs & actually tried it became the Official Expert of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
h t t p : / / w w w . druglibrary . org / schaffer / history / whiteb1 . htm
Search for "killer drug" & read down to "The next step --". It isn't long at all if you read just that
I'm giving you another example. Authoritative figures after power & so-called experts after money will lie about anything especially when they are connected to the govt it is a very common tactic.
Some people will say or do anything for money and/or power. Blackmail is also used to reinforce it.
The human mind is capable of gasping anything once it has the motivation to process all the facts, so any argument to try & shut it down is invalid.
I don't believe anyone has a "pure" opinion. Our our personal life and environment have strong influence on how we form an opinion. However that is the best we can come up with.
You may prefer his opinion and you are welcome to it.
But Whyte seems to think he has no right to his own opinion.
Nor do you have a right to his opinion, if you believe him. But that puts us in a paradox - if no one has a right to an opinion, then where are our opinions to come from?
you misunderstood him. Too put it simple i dont have the right to have an opinion on what country is the best country in the world because i have only visited 3 country's so if i say the US is the best country than i dont have the right to that opinion. What i should say is this ; i have not visited enough country's to answer this question.
How many countries do you have to visit before you are allowed to have an opinion?
In Whyte's example two people are arguing about something neither one can know: was Iraq invasion motivated by oil interests or bad service Bush received in an ethnic restaurant. He claims the 'right to an opinion' is used when person A 'should' be forced to accept opinion of person B.
But no one *ever* uses the 'right to an opinion' as an argument that that opinion is correct.
1. well accually you would never have the right to have an opinion on what country is the best. Maybe this wasn't such a good exemple but you should be able to see the point.
When a person is asked, What country do you think is the best country in the world. Most people would answer something like this : US is the best, good old US.
But what they should answer is: I dont know enough about all other countrys do answer this question.
2. Its better to know that you dont know, that to think you know and be wrong. Well i must be honest and tell you that i have not read his book but i agree on the point that people do not always have the right to theyre opinion. In the same sense as me not having the right of having opinion on someone i dont know. But i agree with you that you should not be forced to exept someones opinion if you think he is wrong only because you dont know about the object yourself.
3. But are you sure that is what he meant. Well listen to Jacque Fresco about peoples right to they're opinion, i think you would find what he has to say very intresting and have a nice day :)
I have not read the book so i dont have the right to have any opinion on whats clear or not in the book. But if he is not clear then i guess your right :)
He simply states the obvious, that having the right to your own opinion doesn''t mean your opinion is right.
He also later argues that being an authority doesn't mean you're right either, so it's kind of odd that you claim he's instructing his reader to defer to one.
@proudfootz He wasn't inconsistent. You're just misrepresenting his message. He didn't say you have to defer to an authority. He just said you can't win a debate by pointing out that you have a right to your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.
"He wasn't inconsistent. You're just misrepresenting his message. He didn't say you have to defer to an authority. He just said you can't win a debate by claiming you have a right to your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less."
No one ever claimed to 'win' a debate by pointing out that one has a right to their own opinion in matters of opinion. Whyte is misrepresenting how the phrase is used in the English language - which is probably why he had to make up a dialogue using the phrase that way.
Also this video, says the book has an agenda, which is another fallacy. Saying something has an agenda does disprove the statement the person just made, the statement could still be correct even if the person saying it has an agenda. That is called an ad hominem attack. It is also called begging the question.
Jamie Whyte does accuse people of 'having an agenda' and seems to think it's a bad thing.
In his diatribe defending fox hunting Whyte spills more ink about the alleged 'agenda' of those who oppose such blood-sports than the actual arguments they make.
@proudfootz Good God. He is not "defending" fox hunting, all he is saying is that the argument Tony Blair is making is inconsistent. Which it is. He never gets into Tony Blairs motives. You really need to re-read the book, man. I am not sure that is going to happen.
I have already read the book. So you're already deeply mistaken.
Yes, Whyte questions the *motives* of those who condemn blood sport. Apparently without ever taking the arguments they advance seriously or doing any research to discover whether the claims they actually do put forward are true.
In my opinion such a one-sided hatchet job is 'defending' the practice.
@proudfootz That is not the point of the story. The point of the story is to show that Tony Blair's position is a contradiction, and if he wants it to make sense he has to adopt a position of someone like a "pragmatism." That is really not the point of the story but, whatever.
Whyte was unable to demonstrate that there is any contradiction between opposition to blood 'sports' like fox hunting (or dog-fighting) and a benign attitude toward hunting and fishing as enjoyed by most people.
Of course, Whyte attempts to equivocate between the two - another 'crime against logic' committed in his poorly written book.
While (unlike Whyte) I defend your right to your opinion, I do not make any argument that because the author has an agenda it somehow 'proves' his opinions are wrong.
What I object to is the various ad hominem and strawman attacks he makes against his ideological 'enemies'.
Good God, this video is annoying. Jamie Whyte, is not saying people do not have a right to an opinion, he is saying making false claims and justifying your opinion with the claim "I have the right to my opinion" is not an argument, it is horrible logic and does not prove your argument. I think the moon is made out of cheese, you show me lots of scientific facts to disprove me, and I respond with "well i have the right to an opinion," is not an argument to show the moon is made out of cheese.
Someone who is smarter and more learned than you is going to have a better opinion. If you have an opinion fr the sake of having one, Whyte is right, your opinion is meaningless and you are not entitled to it.
But if humans do not have the 'right to their own opinion' it follows that the smarter or more learned person has no right to their own opinion either.
No, you are missing the point. An intelligent, learned person has a well-informed opinion, an opinion worth having. If a person has not or cannt make that effort to ensure their opinion is a justified one, their opinion is going to be harmful to society.
It makes no sense to assume that the opinion of a harmful person is a harmful opinion? You have some twisted logic going on. Why deny the obvious? What you see as failure is actually sense. Interesting.
Even though they might have a better education and smarter than you?
This seems to contradict your earlier statement that in that situation your opinions would be 'harmful to society' and your lack of expertise a 'harmful person'.
I think anyone with a good education and a high level of intelligence does not end up a theologian or a tobacco scientist, they end up scientists of something meaningful, or professors of serious academic disciplines.
It's a straw man argument to say that not being entitled to an unsupported opinion, means that when you meet religious professionals you'll have to convert to their faith because they know more about the subject and you wont' be able to disprove all of their points.
Secondly that example contains the burden of proof fallacy. Why do you have to disprove "all of their points" for their religion to be wrong?
Democracy is an appeal to majority, and so fallacious.
a) Whyte seems to argue that we should defer to the 'experts' or simply any glib debater we come across.
b) Whyte's 'Jack & Jill on Iraq War' example seems to indicate that Jack should defer to Jill's opinion simply because he can't disprove her points right at that moment.
c) Noting Whyte's anti-democratic bias is not an argument, just an observation.
Democracy is the least political system, rather than a good way of ascertaining truth.
I'm not a health policy expert I just know what my needs are. - that's why you are the foremost expert in the world about what YOU want! And why democracy and capitalism are good ideas.
1) It's not clear where I said anything about Whyte being *wrong* because of his anti-democratic bias. If I gave that impression it was poorly worded.
2) Deference to 'experts' is troublesome because they are often wrong or in conflict. They need to present cogent arguments and not rely on their alleged 'authority'.
3) Reliance on the 'authority' of experts is also fallacious because they have been known to deceive based on motivating factors.
Whyte says that if you accept the validity of an expert and he/she has a better argument set than you then you dont have the right to maintain your opinion on the matter. Do you agree that this would be a fair conclusion to take from the book? Posting book reviews on youtube is brilliant, are there any popular philosophy books you like?
I don't have any particular 'popular philosophy' books I recommend. Mostly the books I like are about some particular subject: see may review of Richard Carrier's 'Sense & Goodness Without God' or Keith Quincy's 'Plato Unmasked'.
The particular example Whyte uses here (Bush's motivation to initiate Iraq war) is not one that can be settled by 'experts'. Since neither of them can read minds, they actually *do* both have 'a right to their own opinion'.
Your idea of reviewing books on youtube it's fantastic. But your review of this book is not. Whyte is not arguing in favor or Irak invasion or anything, and most of your complaints come from a distorted lecture. According to Whyte, you should use your own head, not his, but you are not using it. You read only the first few pages -- less than 10, that's the extension of the chapter you (mis)read.
I don't speak English as a first language, and I apologize.
Did you read this book? You apply many logical fallacies listed in the book. Eg, you say experts may have ulterior motives. See the chapter 'Motives' on why this is a nonargument. You mention democracy. See the chapter 'Authority'. You use the word 'experts' in different ways. E.g. the Dalai Lama is obviously an expert on Buddhism, but he's not an expert on why Buddhism is better/truer than islam. See the chapter 'Equivocation'.
Really, if anyone should read this book, it's you.
I actually did read the book - Jamie Whyte attacks the motives of various people e.g. people oppose fox hunting because of their alleged 'class bias'. Whyte seems to think we should believe Bush attacked Iraq because of bad service in a restaurant if we're not prepared at any moment to refute such a claim.
If anyone should read the book it was Jamie Whyte (or his editors).
I don't have the book handy but I don't recall such outrageous claims. For the record, I'm not without criticism toward Whyte, but I find it interesting to see the negative response from various people he accuses of being logically inconsistent, whether atheists, Christians, the left or the right. If I needed any clue that he might be on to something, this would be it.
I also have the book, just not on my person. As for your comment, (a) whether Whyte makes errors is not a given (Begging the Question); (b) I only have a _clue_ he _might_ be on to something; and (c) claiming it's 'like he is *on* something' (drugs I guess) is an insult, not an argument. The logical fallacies Whyte mentions (which is what the book is about, rather than religion or politics) are well-known. E.g. your (c) is an Ad Hominem attack.
a) pointing them out: no, talking about them as if they're beyond debate: yes.
b) my point: Whyte wrote a book about logic, but people attack him on his (supposed) substantial views, which are just examples.
c) no ad hominem attack intended, honest. But by arguing about Whyte's views on, say, Iraq, using what I think are the very logical fallacies he talks about, you seem to miss the point of the book, which is about logical fallacies, not about Iraq.
i dont think all experts should be agreed with as there are so many quacks out there. i think youve got to draw a line on what to believe based on what theyre saying. i havent read crimes against logic but i have read his other book, and i quite liked it.
re your first point on the authority of experts, it is good for people to remember that 'Appeal to authority' is on the list of logical fallacies because of the reasons you mention. Evidence and reason, to whatever extent possible, are what must be used.
The criminal justice system is based on lay people deciding (thru the preponderance of reason one way or the other) between experts for both sides in the case.
'experts' can be found to say anything (--look at Thomas Eager on 9/11)
Wow, one must really stand in awe when statheists try to intelectualize this sort of BS, so in their conception of the world something that is not officially stamped msut be rejected? atrocious
A fundamental violation of the universality of human interaction and a disgusting way of atempting to validate state-sponsored censorship.
simple, its someone that after rejecting god (atheism) simply gets attached to another mind archon (state), and believes in the state same way people belive in god, as some sort of deus-ex machine that resolves evg so they will naturally support anything that will make the state bigger and more able to control.
That's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard, even worse then the man who spent fourty thousand pounds on a nice turnip in the country.
And wtf is a 'mind archon'? Sounds like something really bad Scientologists get cursed with. "Sorry, Jen, but you've got a bad case of Mind Archons, as well as the usual Body Thetans."
I think some dictionary help along with some reading or listenig will help you figure it out eventually. This has nothing to do with Xenu and that crap.
You seem to be slightly mentaly impaired, try to separate archon from mind, get the definition of mind and that of archon, and then work out the meaning of them together using the context of my first post to get its meaning.
Wait, i looked up your kind on the internet, Verzögerungnotwendigkeitsanweisungen -syndrome right? Thats a though, should have know before i posted such a bitter answer :(
What an entertaining way of covering up your ignorance! Make fun of an actual psychological syndrome instead of looking it up and responding intelligently.
It was dumb conversation to begin with, but you're dumbing it down with every post, because, as a sufferer of Nichtlachen-Keinworstz Syndrome, you were born without a sense of humor.
Dumbing it down with every post? wow this coming from someone that can't figure out what is a mind archon its really funny, i'd rate your humour 3 out of 5 stars, just for this gimmick alone, yo ucould have done better but...
Remember to stay away from matches, detergent or any other dangerous object, i don't want you to get hurt just because you are a "special" boy ;)
wow, what a crappy book. so that means maybe we should just go along with all the christians, as they tell a good story.
this author sounds like he has sociopathic tendancies, or he is just desperate to find a niche and make a name for himself, even if it is for baffling them with BS.
2) You said "Whyte seems to say that Jack should *adopt* Jill's opinion"
3) I take this as meaning Jill is an expert, as her opinion is chosen.
Rather than experts in the book, Whyte is supporting those with reason. Jill has a better argument as she has backed it up with reason.
"...we cannot refute on the spot" - Whyte says we should defer if we have no reasons to hold that opinion - opinion without reason fails in face of an argument with reason.
i don't need a better reason than a believer for being atheist. christians or religious folk can preach all day and give their reasons. but, i have seen no god and none of their reasoning is backed up with any physical evidence. my opinion is there is no god and the bible didn't happen, man wrote it. my opinion does not fail. i really have no argument and theologists can talk all day and cite anything they wish. they cannot produce a god. perhaps that is not the best example, though.
Thanks for the quote. I could not actually find the version in my book (the one sold in the UK is called "bad thoughts", but there is something similar.
It is a logical extention of his argument, that Jack should adopt Jill's reasoned opinion - yet Whyte does not write this. Rather he only says that Jack's argument has failed, due to lack of evidence.
However, your video fails in that Jill is not considered an expert in the book - I can find no quote for this. This casts doubt on your video.
He seems to say that Jack, after not being able to answer Jill's questions about his argument, resorts to saying he is entitled to his own opinion - which has no real importance for the matter of the Iraq war.
He does not say that Jack should adopt Jill's argument, but he does suggest that Jack argument is flawed, in having an entitlement to an opinion as a point. Jack cannot settle the dispute with this.
That Whyte seems to think we are obligated to abandon our opinion in the face of contrary opinions seems indicated by the following passage:
"They do so [invoke the right to one's opinion] at just that point in an argument when they would otherwise be forced to admit error and change their position."
So in Whyte's example Jack should admit his 'error' and presumably adopt Jill's opinion about Bush's unknowable motivation for the Iraq invasion.
Proudfootz-I strongly disagree with your interpretation of Whyte. Like Mich, I believe you have misunderstood him; Whyte wishes to say that an entitlement to an opinion does not qualify as a point in an argument - it does not settle the matter and does not show the argument is true.
He does not write of believing experts exclusivelyas you suggest. Rather, an entitlement to an opinion is often rightly achieved by experts who have earned this reward by having evidence and a sound argument.
Well, since I don't suffer from "the last word said was mine" syndrom, I won't continue to argue this, but you´re comment is not more than your personal opinion. My reasons can't be stated in a few lines but anyone should read the book and give their own comment. I just did not see what you saw. I found a positive and funny invitation think. People, nice to have an opinion, now read the book and think for yourselves.
Man, you are totally lost. You have no idea what is the author trying to say. Seems to me like you just felt your own ideas under attack and then pick phrases here and there. Of course it's easy making it sound bad... Who dares to deny the right to your own opinion?! But he is not really saying that. You missed the point and let the phrase scare the logic out of you. Really hope people read the book and think for themselves. I am having it published in spanish. Wish me luck.
He's not saying you don't have "right to your own opinion"; he's saying you can't fall back on "it's my opinion" when someone refutes you with a sound argument.
And has nothing to do with who's the expert. He had a whole chapter dedicated to the fact that an argument is right or wrong based on the argument, NOT the arguer.
Also addressed putting different and false arguments in the mouths of others so you can "defeat" them...you ought to re-read those because that's exactly what you're doing.
EconTruth 3 months ago
@EconTruth
Whyte does often put strawmen arguments into the mouths of those he wishes to pretend he has defeated in argument.
In Whyte's example where he puts 'I have a right to my opinion' into the mouth of his antagonist the argument is about something which *neither* person can know - the motivation of a person whose genuine thoughts are not available to mortal human beings. Both Jack and Jill are talking about their opinions, and neither can 'refute' the other on this topic.
proudfootz 3 months ago
@proudfootz Thanks for reply, but you misunderstand my comment. I'm saying that YOU are putting an argument into Whyte's mouth (committing straw man). Whyte never says "an expert opinion is always right and you can't have an opinion". Whyte's point is: one can't fall back on "it's my opinion" if someone presents one with a sound refuting argument. In fact, Whyte spent much of book arguing that whether or not you're an "expert" is irrelevent compared to whether or not your argument is true.
EconTruth 3 months ago
@EconTruth
Perhaps I go too far - but as explained in the video the invented argument between Jack and Jill is one in which Jack is supposedly compelled to 'convert' to Jill's opinion because he has no answer to her arguments and dodges this with reference to his right to his opinion.
Likewise if a Mormon missionary comes to my door and I have not the expertise to answer his arguments I am compelled to convert?
No, I retain my right to my opinion even if I can't 'refute' other's opinions.
proudfootz 3 months ago
@proudfootz
Good point! Made me rethink this. I don't think Whyte says because you're personally unable to refute an argument, that argument must be true...which I agree is silly. I think Whyte's point is that "my right to my opinion" should not be confused with refutation. Your right to your opinion (Mormonism is not your preferred religion) doesn't disprove Mormonism.
Also, I think the point applies when people claim "opinion" on objective issues, not subjective issues (religion or art).
EconTruth 3 months ago
@EconTruth
I agree - citing one's right to an opinion is neither a refutation of someone else's argument nor is it a guarantee that opinion is true.
proudfootz 3 months ago
You're right and wrong at the same time. It's not that we need to concede to the ideas of experts, it's that we should know enough about logic to concede when it is logical to do so. I believe the point is that we can't talk out of our asses and expect the opinion formed to be anything close to reasonable. It's more or less an issue of trusting any given expert. Experts aren't experts because they're smarter than other people, it's because they have an immense base of knowledge on a subject.
Jebus495 4 months ago
@Jebus495
I agree the opinions of experts are worth listening to. They need to be weighed and considered like every other.
proudfootz 4 months ago
lol i like how you use the slippery slope false dilenma
ghettokaiba 6 months ago
@ghettokaiba
It's one of the best!
proudfootz 6 months ago
i never really trust so called experts many times they use the untestability fallacy as well as failure to elucidate
ghettokaiba 6 months ago
do you know of any good books that should expose logical fallacies in government,politics and etc.. your help would be appreciated.
ghettokaiba 6 months ago
@ghettokaiba
Sorry - I don't have any such book.
Actually most of the books I have read seem to have a slant opposite of the interests of ordinary people.
proudfootz 6 months ago
I agree that Whyte's argument is misinterpreted in this video's analysis. Whyte is absolutely not saying that people must surrender their opinions to the hands of experts. His point is that an opinion is not necessarily valid simply because it exists. A person that recklessly defies logic cannot be forced to change their opinion, but that does not make the opinion a valid one (i.e. it is not an opinion that should be treated the same as others simply because it exists).
LaborHours 6 months ago
@LaborHours
The way the phrase 'right to one's opinion' is used in the English language is *not* meaning 'my opinion is right because it exists' (as apparently Whyte apparently wants us to believe).
He is using equivocation if that is the case.
In the example Whyte uses *both* Jill and Jack have opinions about something neither one can *know* the truth of.
Do they have 'equal right' to hold those opinions? Or are they *equally* to blame for having opinions?
proudfootz 6 months ago
@proudfootz In the case of the disagreement between Jack and Jill, if Jack says "I have the right to my opinion", Jack is only changing the subject and not advancing the analysis of the topic. Whyte's point is that it is a meaningless change of topic used by individuals not interested in (or incapable of) advancing the discussion. In other words, it's a statement that has no place in a meaningful discussion and a person should be aware of this. The statement is completely useless.
LaborHours 6 months ago
@LaborHours
Jack isn't using the phrase as an argument - it signals the discussion is over.
Neither Jill nor Jack was able to persuade the other - but as Jack points out they have the right to their own opinion.
AFAICT the phrase isn't used as an argument - neither in real life nor in Whyte's story.
proudfootz 6 months ago
@proudfootz Yes, the statement signals that Jack wants to end the debate, as he has run out of relevant statements and now must change the subject to talk about his rights. If Jack had a real interest in either persuading Jill or being persuaded based on evidence and reason, he would continue the debate. A failure to resolve a debate is always the fault of the one who is no longer able to respond with substance, evidence and reason. Ending a debate does not mean that no correct position exists.
LaborHours 6 months ago
@LaborHours Therefore, Jack saying "I have the right to my opinion" means that he lacks the interest and/or the ability to either persuade or be persuaded. It has nothing to due with the facts, evidence or reason surrounding the original debate. Do not make the mistake of believing that it was not possible to advance the discussion. That is an error in reasoning. It was possible to advance the discussion, but Jack chose not to.
LaborHours 6 months ago
@LaborHours
Of course - only Whyte would think it did have anything to do with whose opinion was correct.
Saying 'I have the right to my opinion and you have your right to yours' means neither participant in the debate was able to persuade the other.
I reject the idea people are *obligated* to continue the debate until one or the other persuades their partner.
It does *not* mean and is *never* used to mean 'my opinion is correct'.
proudfootz 6 months ago
@LaborHours
Yes, the debate must draw to a close at some point - even if neither convinces the other.
Just as I have a right to stop discussing the benefits of religion with someone who wants to continue to badger me about it.
Am I 'at fault' because I have better things to do with my time than continue the debate until I convert her or she converts me?
Absurd!
proudfootz 6 months ago
@proudfootz At no point have I or Whyte said that a person is obligated to persist in a debate. You are also incorrect in saying that Jack's statement means that neither participant was able to persuade the other. It does not mean that at all. And, your statement about Jack implying correctness through his statement is irrelevant. Finally, you are not at fault if you choose to end a debate. The error is in believing that the debate could not be advanced. Don't end by talking about your rights.
LaborHours 6 months ago
@LaborHours
In Whyte's story neither Jill nor Jack persuaded the other. Is that not correct? The 'right to one's opinion' is only mentioned under those circumstances. It is never used as a part of the argument.
"If Jack had a real interest in either persuading Jill or being persuaded based on evidence and reason, he would continue the debate."
Sounds to me like you think they should continue to 'persist in a debate', or whoever gets the 'last word' is the winner by default.
proudfootz 6 months ago
@proudfootz Jack's statement about his rights is useless whether it's a part of the argument or not. If he wants to end the discussion, he should do it some other way (e.g. "I have to go now"). As to whether Jack should persist in the debate, that's up to Jack. It doesn't matter at all to me as he is fictional. Do you find Jack's statement to be useful in some way? We've already seen it used to end a debate, but it's a very silly way to do it.Tell me the purpose of Jack's statement of his right?
LaborHours 6 months ago
@LaborHours
I'm guessing that in matters of opinion (Jill has her opinion and Jack has his) he's just acknowledging their respective right to an opinion.
Like many social interchanges I suppose it's not necessary, but smooths over social interactions.
proudfootz 6 months ago
@proudfootz Not only is the statement unnecessary and irrelevant, but also quite meaningless. If Jack wants to smooth over the interaction with Jill, I would suggest complementing her shoes.
LaborHours 6 months ago
@LaborHours
Well, you have a right to your opinion... ;)
proudfootz 6 months ago
@proudfootz It means you're finished with the discussion, yes? Here are some things you could have said instead making this useless statement: "I appreciate the thoughtful discussion," "it's been a lively and stimulating exchange," "good debate, I appreciate you sharing your ideas" or even "it's been a pleasure." These statements are meaningful. Yours was not. Try one next time for a much better close to a conversation. You're welcome.
LaborHours 6 months ago
@LaborHours
Glad you agree.
proudfootz 6 months ago
It seems like you misunderstood Whyte's argument. If the evidence conflicts with your "opinion", you should adjust your "opinion" to match the evidence (that is a truism of intellectual honesty). Whyte argues that people usually invoke the "right to their opinion" to shield their opinions from rational scrutiny; that is the real crime against a democracy. However, Whyte has also argued that people have the right to EXPRESS their opinion. (cont.)
drumpler1 6 months ago
@drumpler1 By giving people a "right to their opinion", you are prohibiting them from doing anything that could change their mind (i.e., by offering a conflicting view, etc.). For example, if it were true someone had a right to their opinion, and they said that they believe it is okay to be racist, then for me to point out the problems with racism would violate that right. Whyte is contesting the absurdity of such thinking.
drumpler1 6 months ago
Why should recognizing the right to one's opinion prohibit changing one's opinion?
I don't think using the phrase as it is commonly used puts an end to all debate. People often say it when they are *unconvinced* by someone who's been trying to change it. They are basically saying 'you have your opinion and I have mine because you haven't persuaded me'.
I'd say having an opinion is a fundamental feature of being human, and recognizing that is the basis of any kind of meaningful freedom.
proudfootz 6 months ago
@drumpler1
I may have misunderstood, sure. As an empiricist one's beliefs and opinions should be held keeping in mind new evidence can possibly change them. That's hardly a controversial thought.
I agree people should be willing to reconsider their opinions.
I agree we should have the right to express our opinions - but hard to square the circle of 'you have no right to an opinion, but you can express that opinion you have no right to hold.' It seems self-contradictory.
Doesn't it?
proudfootz 6 months ago
@rightwing52000
Still having trouble figuring out how you can have any meaningful freedom without a right to your opinion?
Not surprised - this is one of the little things Whyte ignores in his trashy little book.
proudfootz 6 months ago
@rightwing52000
But I have changed nothing.
Whyte's having an opinion takes nothing from me.
I have stated we have *equal* rights to our own opinions.
Is that so *difficult* to understand?
Freedom is meaningless without the right to one's own opinion.
proudfootz 6 months ago
@rightwing52000
Yes, as I have already said - your 'disrespect' has nothing to do with my right to my opinion.
Just as someone's 'disrespect' for another's life has nothing to do with their right to live.
But the right one's opinion is the foundation for all the freedoms we enjoy.
proudfootz 6 months ago
@rightwing52000
Asked and answered.
Your 'disrespect' for my opinion takes nothing from me.
But my right to my own opinion is the basis of all freedom.
Take away that right, and we might as well all be slabves - no choice, no thoughts of our own, no voice in how we shall live our lives.
This is why Whyte's screed is against the best of Western values.
Freedom of thought, freedom of conscience, freedom of expression.
proudfootz 6 months ago
@rightwing52000
I can't understand why you fail to understand the right to think for oneself.
Imagine an election - you have an opinion who should win the office.
That's what your vote is - an expression of your opinion.
What would happen if someone said - "rightwing52000 has no right to an opinion - we should just throw this out. Or better yet, let's change it to who I think should win."
Does that constitute a violation of your right to choose (e.g. have your own opinion)?
proudfootz 6 months ago
@rightwing52000
I guess it comes down to what we mean by 'respect' - no one has to *agree* with your opinion, but neither can anyone take it away from you. It's a part of who you are.
In a democratic society you have the right to your opinion and the right to express it. Democracy can't function without it. The ballot box is one way of expressing your opinion of who among the choices you are offered should rule over you.
The right to one's opinion is the right to think for oneself.
proudfootz 6 months ago
@rightwing52000
I think you're confused by Whyte's pretzel logic.
Having a right to one's opinion is fundamental.
Who's going to stop you from having an opinion?
Only totalitarian regimes try to deny people the right to their opinions - but they have them anyway.
Whyte's thinking seems to run in agreement with such an inhuman philosophy.
proudfootz 6 months ago
@rightwing52000
I say you have a right to your opinion. Why should I stop you?
You are the one who says you have no right to think I'm an idiot.
See how you cut your own ground from under your feet with Whyte's absurdity?
proudfootz 6 months ago
@rightwing52000
Yes, we have a duty to respect the opinions of others as much as we demand respect for our own.
That's how democracy works. We have different opinions on matters of fact, on values, etc.
Which is why I argue Whyte's book is basically anti-democratic.
If Whyte claims he has no right to his own opinion, why did he put together his screed?
If you have no right to your own opinion, why are you announcing your opinion?
Please answer this evident hypocrisy.
proudfootz 6 months ago
@rightwing52000
Whyte uses the phrase in a way no one does.
That's why his whole argument is BS.
He takes 'Jack' to task for hving an opinion, but gives 'Jill' a free ride.
His book is crap.
proudfootz 6 months ago
@rightwing52000
And Whyte's opinion - he has no right to that either, if you believe what he says.
Nor do the 'experts' have any more right to have their opinion respected than the most 'ignorant' person.
No one ever uses the phrase 'right to my opinion' in the way Whyte tries to put forward in his book.
Whyte's book is riddled with logical fallacies - if that's what makes a book 'great' in your opinion, you're welcome to it.
Whyte's book is crap.
proudfootz 6 months ago
@rightwing52000
That's *your* opinion.
But as you argue - no one need respect that.
Whyte seems to think we ought to defer to the *opinion* of experts though...
proudfootz 6 months ago
If your dumbass is arguing that 911 was controlled demo then you should be locked up for life for breaking every common sense law. You idiot.
12weasel100 7 months ago
@12weasel100
Well you make a persuasive 'argument' there... NOT.
proudfootz 7 months ago
@proudfootz you and AETruth never make persuasive "arguments" you just spew out bullshit lies and opinions.
12weasel100 7 months ago
@12weasel100
That's your BS opinion.
Meanwhile the certified prodfessionals at AETruth have a lot of education and experience on their side...
proudfootz 7 months ago
@proudfootz no it is not just my BS opinion. The only thing AETruth are certified in is certified mentally insane. They have no education if they believe WTC was controlled demo. And they sound like fucking idiots spewing out all the bullshit that they do with no facts to back up any of the shit they claim.
12weasel100 7 months ago
@12weasel100
More BS from you.
You seem to think all architects and engineers are insane - but actually they train to know about building construction - a subject I doubt you know the first thing about.
proudfootz 7 months ago
@proudfootz and more BS from you. As I have already covered AETruth at 1400 (not all structural engineers) are less than one percent of one percent of the engineers worldwide that do not support the fact that fire and damage caused the collapse of the towers. If more than 99% of professional experts support and prove fire then it clearly proves AETruth which offers no facts to support their own theory is not correct. Yet AETruth still "argue" therefore they are uneducated deluded idiots.
12weasel100 7 months ago
@12weasel100
Can you verify this 99% figure you just pulled out of your hat?
Please tell us where we can see the professional experts have been polled and voted that way.
Otherwise it just looks like you told another big fib because you have no facts on your side.
proudfootz 7 months ago
@proudfootz (continued) verify the 99%. US Dept of Labour states there are 1,700,000 engineers and architects working in the US. 1400 of 1,700,000 is less than one percent of one percent (about 0.08%) that agree with this bullshit. The other 99% agree fire caused the collapse. And your 1400 is worldwide add worldwide engineers and architects that disagree with your bullshit and your minority becomes even smaller. You are a tiny group of deluded fucking idiots.
12weasel100 7 months ago
@12weasel100
...and your evidence they 'agree with the fire collapdse theory' is...?
Just because they say nothing means they agree, or have even looked into the matter.
Clearly you are a liar - making up statistics like this thinking you'll fool someone.
You fail, bigtime.
proudfootz 7 months ago
@proudfootz no you and Gage and your pitiful band of "truthers" are the idiots that make up bullshit. You have failed to provide one fact to back up your bullshit theory.
12weasel100 7 months ago
@12weasel100
You just proved yourself to be a liar - no reason to believe your claims.
Go away, little troll, and play your asinine games somewhere else.
proudfootz 7 months ago
@proudfootz you have failed to prove anything you truther troll
12weasel100 7 months ago
@proudfootz I have proven that AETruth is just a tiny little band of pitiful deluded idiots. And you are part of it making you a pitiful deluded idiot.
12weasel100 7 months ago
@12weasel100
It's you who is deluded if you think making shit up is persuasive.
proudfootz 7 months ago
@proudfootz (continued) and no I do not think ALL architects and engineers are insane. I never made that claim however in typical truther style you jumped to that bullshit conclusion and made up a story and tried to misquote me (typical of you assholes) I clearly stated AETruth are fucking deluded idiots and they are less than one percent of one percent of engineers. You fucking lying sack of shit.
12weasel100 7 months ago
@12weasel100
You said all these architects and engineers are only certified to be insane - but they are certified to build buildings (unlike you). So you see where a normal person can be confused by the gobbledygook you write.
Why don't you take a deep breath and go for a wak on the grounds, then nurse will come with your meds and you'll feel better.
proudfootz 7 months ago
@proudfootz no I do not state that all engineers and architects are insane. I have written that all AETruthers (all truthers in general also) are deluded uneducated fucking idiots. you dumb fuck. And your response failed to provide a single fact to prove your bullshit theory. ahahaha you fucking loser.
12weasel100 7 months ago
Harry Anslinger, Commissioner of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics said: "Marihuana is an addictive drug which produces in its user’s insanity, criminality, and death."
A pharmacologist at Temple University who did experiments with dogs & actually tried it became the Official Expert of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics.
h t t p : / / w w w . druglibrary . org / schaffer / history / whiteb1 . htm
Search for "killer drug" & read down to "The next step --". It isn't long at all if you read just that
ujisx 8 months ago
@ujisx
I'd hardly blame Whyte's problems with his book on drug use.
proudfootz 8 months ago
@proudfootz I'm not saying that either.
I'm giving you another example. Authoritative figures after power & so-called experts after money will lie about anything especially when they are connected to the govt it is a very common tactic.
Some people will say or do anything for money and/or power. Blackmail is also used to reinforce it.
The human mind is capable of gasping anything once it has the motivation to process all the facts, so any argument to try & shut it down is invalid.
ujisx 8 months ago
@ujisx
Thanks for the illustration.
I often point to conflicting testimony of 'experts' in court settings.
In the end we always have to make our own judgement about who has credibility.
Whyte's opinion that we should always defer to the opinion of alleged experts is deeply flawed.
proudfootz 8 months ago
I don't believe anyone has a "pure" opinion. Our our personal life and environment have strong influence on how we form an opinion. However that is the best we can come up with.
decalco137 8 months ago
@decalco137
Yes, people are influenced in the formation of their opinions.
Whyte seems to think no one should have them.
That's *his* opinion - which I guess he doesn't believe he has a right to either.
proudfootz 8 months ago
Yes, experts are often wrong, but non experts (YOU) are seldom right.
He is a prize winner, lecturing in Oxford !
You are making film clips for YouTube...
You have your opinion, he has his opinion.... I PREFER THE PRIZE WINNER PHILOSOPHER'S opinion.
decalco137 8 months ago
@decalco137
You may prefer his opinion and you are welcome to it.
But Whyte seems to think he has no right to his own opinion.
Nor do you have a right to his opinion, if you believe him. But that puts us in a paradox - if no one has a right to an opinion, then where are our opinions to come from?
proudfootz 8 months ago
you misunderstood him. Too put it simple i dont have the right to have an opinion on what country is the best country in the world because i have only visited 3 country's so if i say the US is the best country than i dont have the right to that opinion. What i should say is this ; i have not visited enough country's to answer this question.
TheUntrueFantasy 10 months ago
@TheUntrueFantasy
How many countries do you have to visit before you are allowed to have an opinion?
In Whyte's example two people are arguing about something neither one can know: was Iraq invasion motivated by oil interests or bad service Bush received in an ethnic restaurant. He claims the 'right to an opinion' is used when person A 'should' be forced to accept opinion of person B.
But no one *ever* uses the 'right to an opinion' as an argument that that opinion is correct.
proudfootz 10 months ago
@proudfootz
1. well accually you would never have the right to have an opinion on what country is the best. Maybe this wasn't such a good exemple but you should be able to see the point.
When a person is asked, What country do you think is the best country in the world. Most people would answer something like this : US is the best, good old US.
But what they should answer is: I dont know enough about all other countrys do answer this question.
TheUntrueFantasy 10 months ago
@proudfootz
2. Its better to know that you dont know, that to think you know and be wrong. Well i must be honest and tell you that i have not read his book but i agree on the point that people do not always have the right to theyre opinion. In the same sense as me not having the right of having opinion on someone i dont know. But i agree with you that you should not be forced to exept someones opinion if you think he is wrong only because you dont know about the object yourself.
TheUntrueFantasy 10 months ago
@proudfootz
3. But are you sure that is what he meant. Well listen to Jacque Fresco about peoples right to they're opinion, i think you would find what he has to say very intresting and have a nice day :)
TheUntrueFantasy 10 months ago
@TheUntrueFantasy
I read the book and it's crystral clear what's written on the page.
If it's not clear that's Whyte's problem, isn't it?
proudfootz 10 months ago
@proudfootz
I have not read the book so i dont have the right to have any opinion on whats clear or not in the book. But if he is not clear then i guess your right :)
TheUntrueFantasy 10 months ago
You're misrepresenting Whyte's argument.
He simply states the obvious, that having the right to your own opinion doesn''t mean your opinion is right.
He also later argues that being an authority doesn't mean you're right either, so it's kind of odd that you claim he's instructing his reader to defer to one.
kenandpaper 10 months ago
@kenandpaper
I don't think anyone argues that having the right to an opinion makes that opinion correct.
Yes, it is rather odd Whyte doesn't seem to be consistent.
proudfootz 10 months ago
Comment removed
kenandpaper 10 months ago
Comment removed
kenandpaper 10 months ago
Comment removed
kenandpaper 10 months ago
Comment removed
kenandpaper 10 months ago
Comment removed
kenandpaper 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@proudfootz He wasn't inconsistent. You're just misrepresenting his message. He didn't say you have to defer to an authority. He just said you can't win a debate by pointing out that you have a right to your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less.
kenandpaper 10 months ago
"He wasn't inconsistent. You're just misrepresenting his message. He didn't say you have to defer to an authority. He just said you can't win a debate by claiming you have a right to your opinion. Nothing more, nothing less."
No one ever claimed to 'win' a debate by pointing out that one has a right to their own opinion in matters of opinion. Whyte is misrepresenting how the phrase is used in the English language - which is probably why he had to make up a dialogue using the phrase that way.
proudfootz 10 months ago
Comment removed
michellangelof 1 year ago
Also this video, says the book has an agenda, which is another fallacy. Saying something has an agenda does disprove the statement the person just made, the statement could still be correct even if the person saying it has an agenda. That is called an ad hominem attack. It is also called begging the question.
natedaug1 1 year ago
@natedaug1
Jamie Whyte does accuse people of 'having an agenda' and seems to think it's a bad thing.
In his diatribe defending fox hunting Whyte spills more ink about the alleged 'agenda' of those who oppose such blood-sports than the actual arguments they make.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz Good God. He is not "defending" fox hunting, all he is saying is that the argument Tony Blair is making is inconsistent. Which it is. He never gets into Tony Blairs motives. You really need to re-read the book, man. I am not sure that is going to happen.
natedaug1 1 year ago
@natedaug1
I have already read the book. So you're already deeply mistaken.
Yes, Whyte questions the *motives* of those who condemn blood sport. Apparently without ever taking the arguments they advance seriously or doing any research to discover whether the claims they actually do put forward are true.
In my opinion such a one-sided hatchet job is 'defending' the practice.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz That is not the point of the story. The point of the story is to show that Tony Blair's position is a contradiction, and if he wants it to make sense he has to adopt a position of someone like a "pragmatism." That is really not the point of the story but, whatever.
natedaug1 1 year ago
@natedaug1
Whyte was unable to demonstrate that there is any contradiction between opposition to blood 'sports' like fox hunting (or dog-fighting) and a benign attitude toward hunting and fishing as enjoyed by most people.
Of course, Whyte attempts to equivocate between the two - another 'crime against logic' committed in his poorly written book.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@natedaug1
While (unlike Whyte) I defend your right to your opinion, I do not make any argument that because the author has an agenda it somehow 'proves' his opinions are wrong.
What I object to is the various ad hominem and strawman attacks he makes against his ideological 'enemies'.
proudfootz 1 year ago
Good God, this video is annoying. Jamie Whyte, is not saying people do not have a right to an opinion, he is saying making false claims and justifying your opinion with the claim "I have the right to my opinion" is not an argument, it is horrible logic and does not prove your argument. I think the moon is made out of cheese, you show me lots of scientific facts to disprove me, and I respond with "well i have the right to an opinion," is not an argument to show the moon is made out of cheese.
natedaug1 1 year ago
@natedaug1
The problem is that Whyte has to make up a scenario where a person allegedly uses the 'right to an opinion' as an argument.
No one in real life uses the phrase to mean that.
That's what is annoying about Whyte - his frequent resort to strawman arguments.
proudfootz 1 year ago
Someone who is smarter and more learned than you is going to have a better opinion. If you have an opinion fr the sake of having one, Whyte is right, your opinion is meaningless and you are not entitled to it.
GnomesAmok 1 year ago
@GnomesAmok
But if humans do not have the 'right to their own opinion' it follows that the smarter or more learned person has no right to their own opinion either.
Logic cuts both ways.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
No, you are missing the point. An intelligent, learned person has a well-informed opinion, an opinion worth having. If a person has not or cannt make that effort to ensure their opinion is a justified one, their opinion is going to be harmful to society.
GnomesAmok 1 year ago
@GnomesAmok
So do we or do we not have the right to an opinion?
Nothing guarantees that an intelligent learned person has a better opinion than anyone else.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@GnomesAmok
It makes no sense to merely assume any given opinion is 'harmful to society' because of the person who holds that opinion.
That's called the Genetic Fallacy.
If that is what Whyte is arguing it's just one more failure of this book.
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
It makes no sense to assume that the opinion of a harmful person is a harmful opinion? You have some twisted logic going on. Why deny the obvious? What you see as failure is actually sense. Interesting.
GnomesAmok 1 year ago
@GnomesAmok
Now a person is 'harmful' if they don't have the same authority as a theologian or a tobacco-company scientist?
In my opinion it is you who is engaging in twisted logic - much like Lamie White.
But Whyte says neither he nor you have a right to your opinions, so I wonder why you keep spouting them?
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
I would say a theologian or a tobacco company scientist does not have any authority.
GnomesAmok 1 year ago
@GnomesAmok
Even though they might have a better education and smarter than you?
This seems to contradict your earlier statement that in that situation your opinions would be 'harmful to society' and your lack of expertise a 'harmful person'.
It doesn't seem you've thought this through....
proudfootz 1 year ago
@proudfootz
I think anyone with a good education and a high level of intelligence does not end up a theologian or a tobacco scientist, they end up scientists of something meaningful, or professors of serious academic disciplines.
GnomesAmok 1 year ago
@GnomesAmok
That's an opinion, and I defend your right to hold it.
proudfootz 1 year ago
My understanding is that you don't have a right to have your opinion taken seriously if you can't provide cogent justification.
This video contained several fallacies.
Appeal to morality - saying that Whyte's argument is wrong because it's undemocratic. Democracy is a moral value, not counter evidence.
"Experts have been wrong" yes, but perhaps not so often as lay people have been wrong.
"Experts might have motivations other than truth" appeal to bias - a biased arguer can still be right.
rohimbo 2 years ago
Further :
It's a straw man argument to say that not being entitled to an unsupported opinion, means that when you meet religious professionals you'll have to convert to their faith because they know more about the subject and you wont' be able to disprove all of their points.
Secondly that example contains the burden of proof fallacy. Why do you have to disprove "all of their points" for their religion to be wrong?
Democracy is an appeal to majority, and so fallacious.
rohimbo 2 years ago
a) Whyte seems to argue that we should defer to the 'experts' or simply any glib debater we come across.
b) Whyte's 'Jack & Jill on Iraq War' example seems to indicate that Jack should defer to Jill's opinion simply because he can't disprove her points right at that moment.
c) Noting Whyte's anti-democratic bias is not an argument, just an observation.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Democracy is the least political system, rather than a good way of ascertaining truth.
I'm not a health policy expert I just know what my needs are. - that's why you are the foremost expert in the world about what YOU want! And why democracy and capitalism are good ideas.
rohimbo 2 years ago
1) It's not clear where I said anything about Whyte being *wrong* because of his anti-democratic bias. If I gave that impression it was poorly worded.
2) Deference to 'experts' is troublesome because they are often wrong or in conflict. They need to present cogent arguments and not rely on their alleged 'authority'.
3) Reliance on the 'authority' of experts is also fallacious because they have been known to deceive based on motivating factors.
proudfootz 2 years ago
@proudfootz
In relation to 3) yes, relying on experts is an appeal to authority.
If their arguments and evidence is weak then they shouldn't be relied upon.
However, you're still appealing to bias. Experts can be right or wrong independent of their motivations.
rohimbo 2 years ago
Whyte says that if you accept the validity of an expert and he/she has a better argument set than you then you dont have the right to maintain your opinion on the matter. Do you agree that this would be a fair conclusion to take from the book? Posting book reviews on youtube is brilliant, are there any popular philosophy books you like?
rr0nn 2 years ago
I don't have any particular 'popular philosophy' books I recommend. Mostly the books I like are about some particular subject: see may review of Richard Carrier's 'Sense & Goodness Without God' or Keith Quincy's 'Plato Unmasked'.
The particular example Whyte uses here (Bush's motivation to initiate Iraq war) is not one that can be settled by 'experts'. Since neither of them can read minds, they actually *do* both have 'a right to their own opinion'.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Your idea of reviewing books on youtube it's fantastic. But your review of this book is not. Whyte is not arguing in favor or Irak invasion or anything, and most of your complaints come from a distorted lecture. According to Whyte, you should use your own head, not his, but you are not using it. You read only the first few pages -- less than 10, that's the extension of the chapter you (mis)read.
I don't speak English as a first language, and I apologize.
pbslater 2 years ago
pb -
I read the whole thing, but your false version of events allows you to continue to believe Whyte's twisted 'logic'.
The Iraq invasion was his example, not mine. His example about fox 'hunting' isn't on 1st ten pages either.
Why do you feel you need to lie to defend Whyte? The truth won't do, apparently.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Did you read this book? You apply many logical fallacies listed in the book. Eg, you say experts may have ulterior motives. See the chapter 'Motives' on why this is a nonargument. You mention democracy. See the chapter 'Authority'. You use the word 'experts' in different ways. E.g. the Dalai Lama is obviously an expert on Buddhism, but he's not an expert on why Buddhism is better/truer than islam. See the chapter 'Equivocation'.
Really, if anyone should read this book, it's you.
JustAMinuteOYourTime 2 years ago
I actually did read the book - Jamie Whyte attacks the motives of various people e.g. people oppose fox hunting because of their alleged 'class bias'. Whyte seems to think we should believe Bush attacked Iraq because of bad service in a restaurant if we're not prepared at any moment to refute such a claim.
If anyone should read the book it was Jamie Whyte (or his editors).
proudfootz 2 years ago
I don't have the book handy but I don't recall such outrageous claims. For the record, I'm not without criticism toward Whyte, but I find it interesting to see the negative response from various people he accuses of being logically inconsistent, whether atheists, Christians, the left or the right. If I needed any clue that he might be on to something, this would be it.
JustAMinuteOYourTime 2 years ago
I do happen to have the book, and have read it.
Just because people call Whyte on his errors is no evidence he is 'on to something' - more like he is *on* something.
proudfootz 2 years ago
I also have the book, just not on my person. As for your comment, (a) whether Whyte makes errors is not a given (Begging the Question); (b) I only have a _clue_ he _might_ be on to something; and (c) claiming it's 'like he is *on* something' (drugs I guess) is an insult, not an argument. The logical fallacies Whyte mentions (which is what the book is about, rather than religion or politics) are well-known. E.g. your (c) is an Ad Hominem attack.
JustAMinuteOYourTime 2 years ago
@JustAMinuteOYourTime
a) This video is about errors and hypocrisy in Whyte's book. It isn't begging the question to point them out.
b) That people object to his mistakes is a clue he is wrong on some pooints, not that he is correct.
C) Your remark that I need to 'read the book' is itself an ad hominem rather than a reasoned argument, so I guess no one is perfect.
proudfootz 2 years ago
a) pointing them out: no, talking about them as if they're beyond debate: yes.
b) my point: Whyte wrote a book about logic, but people attack him on his (supposed) substantial views, which are just examples.
c) no ad hominem attack intended, honest. But by arguing about Whyte's views on, say, Iraq, using what I think are the very logical fallacies he talks about, you seem to miss the point of the book, which is about logical fallacies, not about Iraq.
JustAMinuteOYourTime 2 years ago
a) Whyte makes use of many of the 'crimes against logic' he is supposedly against.
b) When Whyte uses these logical fallacies himself in efforts to undermine other people's arguments it shows he is not credible.
c) obviously the book isn't about Iraq, but it helps to use his examples to show where Whyte goes wrong.
proudfootz 2 years ago
i dont think all experts should be agreed with as there are so many quacks out there. i think youve got to draw a line on what to believe based on what theyre saying. i havent read crimes against logic but i have read his other book, and i quite liked it.
chazswaz87 2 years ago
re your first point on the authority of experts, it is good for people to remember that 'Appeal to authority' is on the list of logical fallacies because of the reasons you mention. Evidence and reason, to whatever extent possible, are what must be used.
The criminal justice system is based on lay people deciding (thru the preponderance of reason one way or the other) between experts for both sides in the case.
'experts' can be found to say anything (--look at Thomas Eager on 9/11)
zoskiaist 2 years ago
zos -
Exactly what I wasa driving at - 'experts' can be found to support any point you want to make.
Remember the tobacco companies and their pet scientists who tried to hide how bad smoking is for health.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Wow, one must really stand in awe when statheists try to intelectualize this sort of BS, so in their conception of the world something that is not officially stamped msut be rejected? atrocious
A fundamental violation of the universality of human interaction and a disgusting way of atempting to validate state-sponsored censorship.
Nebelung13 2 years ago
Er, what's a statheist?
Kieranfoy 2 years ago
simple, its someone that after rejecting god (atheism) simply gets attached to another mind archon (state), and believes in the state same way people belive in god, as some sort of deus-ex machine that resolves evg so they will naturally support anything that will make the state bigger and more able to control.
Nebelung13 2 years ago
That's one of the most ridiculous things I've heard, even worse then the man who spent fourty thousand pounds on a nice turnip in the country.
And wtf is a 'mind archon'? Sounds like something really bad Scientologists get cursed with. "Sorry, Jen, but you've got a bad case of Mind Archons, as well as the usual Body Thetans."
I lol.
Seriously.
Kieranfoy 2 years ago
I think some dictionary help along with some reading or listenig will help you figure it out eventually. This has nothing to do with Xenu and that crap.
I lol back at you.
Nebelung13 2 years ago
Oddly enough, my copy of the Oxford Dictionary doesn't include the term 'mind archon.'
And, out of idle curiosity, are you afflicted with Nichtlachen-Keinwortz Syndrome?
Kieranfoy 2 years ago
You seem to be slightly mentaly impaired, try to separate archon from mind, get the definition of mind and that of archon, and then work out the meaning of them together using the context of my first post to get its meaning.
Nebelung13 2 years ago
Yup, you definitely got Nichtlachen-Keinwortz Syndrome.
Kieranfoy 2 years ago
Oh yes "that" syndrome
Wait, i looked up your kind on the internet, Verzögerungnotwendigkeitsanweisungen -syndrome right? Thats a though, should have know before i posted such a bitter answer :(
Nebelung13 2 years ago
What an entertaining way of covering up your ignorance! Make fun of an actual psychological syndrome instead of looking it up and responding intelligently.
Kieranfoy 2 years ago
Oh yes, a very intelectual conversation we are having, again i apologize for not knowing about your syndrome earlier, no need to get craby :(
I didn't know you had a 'condition'.
Nebelung13 2 years ago
It was dumb conversation to begin with, but you're dumbing it down with every post, because, as a sufferer of Nichtlachen-Keinworstz Syndrome, you were born without a sense of humor.
Bye, Snoozy!
Kieranfoy 2 years ago
Dumbing it down with every post? wow this coming from someone that can't figure out what is a mind archon its really funny, i'd rate your humour 3 out of 5 stars, just for this gimmick alone, yo ucould have done better but...
Remember to stay away from matches, detergent or any other dangerous object, i don't want you to get hurt just because you are a "special" boy ;)
b
Nebelung13 2 years ago
wow, what a crappy book. so that means maybe we should just go along with all the christians, as they tell a good story.
this author sounds like he has sociopathic tendancies, or he is just desperate to find a niche and make a name for himself, even if it is for baffling them with BS.
NotTooObvious 2 years ago
@NotTooObvious The book is very critical of Christianity. Read the book please.
natedaug1 1 year ago
@natedaug1
While Whyte does criticise religion, his reliance on 'arguments from authority' are exactly the sort of thing religious fanatics often rely on.
Of course Whyte relies on ridiculing the appearance of religious leaders rather than reasoned argument.
proudfootz 1 year ago
1) You said opinions were defered to experts.
2) You said "Whyte seems to say that Jack should *adopt* Jill's opinion"
3) I take this as meaning Jill is an expert, as her opinion is chosen.
Rather than experts in the book, Whyte is supporting those with reason. Jill has a better argument as she has backed it up with reason.
"...we cannot refute on the spot" - Whyte says we should defer if we have no reasons to hold that opinion - opinion without reason fails in face of an argument with reason.
ApusChin 2 years ago
1) At about 2:00 I list 'experts' among *several* types Whyte seems to think we should defer to.
2) Whyte does seem to think Jack should 'admit error and change his opinion.'
3) Whyte doesn't tell us what Jill's opinion is - maybe it's that Bush's real motivation was bad service at an Iraqi restaurant.
Whyte doesn't say that Jack has *no* reasons for holding his opinion, merely that he hasn't answered all of Jill's objections to her satisfaction.
Jill may simply be a more glib debater.
proudfootz 2 years ago
i don't need a better reason than a believer for being atheist. christians or religious folk can preach all day and give their reasons. but, i have seen no god and none of their reasoning is backed up with any physical evidence. my opinion is there is no god and the bible didn't happen, man wrote it. my opinion does not fail. i really have no argument and theologists can talk all day and cite anything they wish. they cannot produce a god. perhaps that is not the best example, though.
NotTooObvious 2 years ago 2
Thanks for the quote. I could not actually find the version in my book (the one sold in the UK is called "bad thoughts", but there is something similar.
It is a logical extention of his argument, that Jack should adopt Jill's reasoned opinion - yet Whyte does not write this. Rather he only says that Jack's argument has failed, due to lack of evidence.
However, your video fails in that Jill is not considered an expert in the book - I can find no quote for this. This casts doubt on your video.
ApusChin 2 years ago
ac -
Whyte's deference to 'experts' is clear if one reads the rest of the book.
In this chapter he merely says we should defer to everyone we meet whose arguments we cannot refute on the spot.
I didn't claim Jill was an expert either.
proudfootz 2 years ago
I think you have misunderstood Whyte.
He seems to say that Jack, after not being able to answer Jill's questions about his argument, resorts to saying he is entitled to his own opinion - which has no real importance for the matter of the Iraq war.
He does not say that Jack should adopt Jill's argument, but he does suggest that Jack argument is flawed, in having an entitlement to an opinion as a point. Jack cannot settle the dispute with this.
Perhaps Whyte should have made this more clear.
ApusChin 2 years ago
I think Whyte is just confused about what it means when someone says "you have a right to your opinion."
It simply means that one finds the argument they are presented with unconvincing, not that they are claiming their own opinion is therefore correct.
So the right to one's opinion is not itself a 'point' in an argument and no one takes it to be one. It signals that the discussion is over.
Whyte is correct that is doesn't settle an argument and mistaken that anyone takes it to do so.
proudfootz 2 years ago
That Whyte seems to think we are obligated to abandon our opinion in the face of contrary opinions seems indicated by the following passage:
"They do so [invoke the right to one's opinion] at just that point in an argument when they would otherwise be forced to admit error and change their position."
So in Whyte's example Jack should admit his 'error' and presumably adopt Jill's opinion about Bush's unknowable motivation for the Iraq invasion.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Whyte made it perfectly clear. The reviewer simply failed to comprehend the point
siflrock 2 years ago 8
Whyte indulges in many fallacious arguments, that much is perfectly clear.
proudfootz 2 years ago
@siflrock Here here
FrankoFlesh 1 year ago
Proudfootz-I strongly disagree with your interpretation of Whyte. Like Mich, I believe you have misunderstood him; Whyte wishes to say that an entitlement to an opinion does not qualify as a point in an argument - it does not settle the matter and does not show the argument is true.
He does not write of believing experts exclusivelyas you suggest. Rather, an entitlement to an opinion is often rightly achieved by experts who have earned this reward by having evidence and a sound argument.
ApusChin 2 years ago 7
Certainly having an opinion (as everyone seems to do) is not evidence of the correctness of that opinion.
In Whyte's example both Jack and Jill have opinions about something neither one can know - Bush's motivation for Iraq invasion.
Whyte seems to say that Jack should *adopt* Jill's opinion, while Jack maintains he has a right to his own opinion just as Jill has a right to hers.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Man. You surely read the book. But you fail to understand it. Period.
michellangelof 2 years ago
I understand it all too well.
It's just another crank trying to pass off his kvetching as a standard for logic.
proudfootz 2 years ago
Well, since I don't suffer from "the last word said was mine" syndrom, I won't continue to argue this, but you´re comment is not more than your personal opinion. My reasons can't be stated in a few lines but anyone should read the book and give their own comment. I just did not see what you saw. I found a positive and funny invitation think. People, nice to have an opinion, now read the book and think for yourselves.
michellangelof 2 years ago
Man, you are totally lost. You have no idea what is the author trying to say. Seems to me like you just felt your own ideas under attack and then pick phrases here and there. Of course it's easy making it sound bad... Who dares to deny the right to your own opinion?! But he is not really saying that. You missed the point and let the phrase scare the logic out of you. Really hope people read the book and think for themselves. I am having it published in spanish. Wish me luck.
michellangelof 2 years ago