|
CuriousLord -> RE: Abortion (10/10/2007 1:35:44 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: missturbation
Apologies for lateness of reply i've been ill.
No need for an apology, though I do hope you feel better!
quote:
ORIGINAL: missturbationquote:
ORIGINAL: CuriousLord [CL's note: Snipped here to reduce backquote.]
Until it's backed up with reason that's up for debate and evidence. Then it's a scientific theory.
Where is your evidence that makes your opinion fact?
Ack. This one's.. well, I guess I'd need which specific 'opinion' you're referring to. (Most things seem to require a lot of different facts, so listing off all my opinions related to this subject would be.. long.. heh.)
quote:
ORIGINAL: missturbation
Yes its a debate but scientific theory still boils down to opinion.
I really.. don't see "opinion" in the same way. I believe there's a better way of looking at it.
In general, people can tend to agree upon some basics of what it means to be generally healthy, such as lacking diseases and other physical ailments, being in a desirable physical condition, not requiring medical services to maintain one's self, etc.
Regardless of this, though, people have different "opinion"s one what a healthy diet is for the average person. Some might argue that fat-free diets are better (as many do), some might argue that a diet of lots of meats is best (Dr. Atkins and such), while others might proclaim a diet either high in or lacking of paricular foods. Heck, other advocate having a general mix of things in general for variety, while others might say that whatever your platet desires is what you need!
In all honesty, there's a particular diet which, within reason, would likely be healthiest for one person, with results all would agree with are more healthy, should they be able to see the whole picture. So, despite them all having an "opinion"- one of them is right, regardless of the presense of other, different opinions. It's entirely possible, if not probable, that none of them are entirely right.
To me, it seems that the general way of dealing with this sort of disagreement is to say, "Everyone has their own opinion; respect it. Yours is no more right than the others'." Nonetheless, I couldn't disagree more.
Rather, I feel it's important everyone sit around and talk about why they believe these things. Why, for instance, does one believe that a diet lacking in fats would be healthy? Or what's the deal with the all-meat bit? I can assure you, at least one of these opinions is wrong for certain; it's very likely (though not certain, I suppose) that both are wrong. But this isn't entirely important, as the opinions themselves shouldn't carry any weight. It's the ideas that form those opinions.
Should either party say, "I just think so"- well, I'm sorry, but it's completely unreasonable to consider their opinion as valid, or to respect it beyond the point of understanding that that's how this person feels.
Then the debate comes in. People should come together, pooling their points, trying to put it together in one, larger picture; this picture is very much likely to be more complex than any of the component reasonings, though, for this, it is likely to gain prospective and accuracy.
This is how my "opinions" are formed. My thoughts on matters are the synthesis of all reasonings I've encountered and cataloged; which I'm constantly doing. At no point did I say, "I feel this is wrong- therefore, it's my opinion it is", but, at any given moment, my opinion is a dictated by the collective reasonings.
This process parallels the scientific method as an analog to the point that it is the scientific method; to continue taking in empiracle data to form governing rules and predictions for things in general, all of which are prone to change when new data should contradict such predictions as observed.
In this regard, I do not care for opinions; just their reasonings. This approach is scientific.
|
|
|
|
