Oh!
Opinion versus Science
We don’t always know everything there is to know about subject.
In fact, we rarely know most of a subject. There are few among us, relatively, who have mastered an entire body of knowledge to speak both extemporaneously and eloquently about it.
Therefore, most of us might be better off going into any discussion with the idea that there is more to learn.
We don’t do this on social media. Ha. We are nowhere near this critical in our thinking on social media (as an aside, also, we would do well to remember that critical thinking does not merely suggest critically examining the opinions of others, rather it is a two-sided coin, the second side reminding us to critically examine our own thoughts and opinions).
Outside of social media, most of us do not do this in our daily lives either. We just don’t have the bandwidth for it. So much information comes at us everyday, from every side, that we hardly have the time to sort through our consuming of information, never mind our creation and spreading of information. We play the part of information spreaders without taking the time to think through what we are spreading and to what end it may be used. I am guilty of this as well, I am not above it. No one is. At least, I have not observed anyone who is. You see it on news shows, in the mouths of the commentators who are the paid thinkers among us. You hear it from elected officials, who are paid to represent us in thought.
No one is above muddy thinking.
If we can go into our discussions, both social media and IRL interactions, with this pre-thought, things would probably go a lot smoother.
Not only do we not know the whole of any subject, but we also know nary little about the lived lives of those who we might be involved in discussion. (Am I using “nary” correctly, here?)
People’s personal experiences are so far outside of our knowledge base that we don’t even stop to really think about them, most of the time. We scorn such talk as “just your opinion” and we move on. Yes, I agree, opinion cannot stand up to science and the scientific method. When these are in disagreement, it would be better to side with science than opinion. However, opinion is informed by experience — or lack of experience — and plays an enormous role in our thinking process. It is filtered through, not only our experiences, but our deepest values.
Ralph Waldo Emerson, in his essay on Self-Reliance, said:
“The eye was placed where one ray should fall, that it might testify to that particular ray.”
He is suggesting that our attention is drawn to those things that we are meant to see and talk about. To ignore another’s opinion and experience is to negate that part of the whole of humanity. Emerson not only implores us to pay attention to those places to which our focus is drawn, but to honor that in others.
“Not for nothing one face, one character, one fact, makes much impression on him, and another none.”
We just don’t have a good way of talking about these things. We don’t have the words, or the conventions of behavior, to interact in these ways, that we might be able to hear what another is testifying about so that we may glimpse a larger picture of any “reality”.
“All men plume themselves on the improvement of society, and no man improves.”
So, the next time you are in discussion — heated or otherwise — and you are not sure where to go next, or are perhaps at a place where you are about to lose all composure, take it as a moment to improve yourself, rather than the other. Ask a question, if only one: what experiences have led you to believe this? If they cannot answer, ask in a different way or split up the question into smaller, more edible, parts: this part of your argument, what have you seen that makes this seem true to you?
Share what makes things seem true or untrue to you.
Create a back and forth.
Perspective is not inherently anti-scientific. It is rather the collection of perspectives that allows one to more accurately see a whole.
