The truth is not determined by voting, but the truth is often positively correlated with peoples’ opinions. It is rational to weigh other people’s opinions. If I disagree with someone, I must ask myself why I am more likely to be correct than they are.
Annoyance had already explained his reasons for his position, and you explained reasons for yours in the rest of your comment. Once we are discussing those reasons directly, there is no need to use majority opinion as a proxy for the relative strength of those reasons.
I disagree. People’s opinions are evidence and deserve weight. Smarter, more rational, people’s opinions deserve more weight. The opinions of scientists who specialize in a relevant subject deserve still more weight. Why shouldn’t we consider this type of evidence?
First, I should point out that what I initially objected to was an appeal to an assertion of raw majority, with no weighting based on rationality, intelligence, or specialization, and in which uninformed opinions are likely to drown out evidence-informed expert opinions.
Second, the reason the opinion of a specialist can be strong evidence is that the specialist is likely to have access to evidence not generally available or known, and have superior ability to process that evidence. So, when someone discovers that a specialist disagrees with them, they should seek to learn the evidence and arguments that informed the specialist’s opinions, and then evaluate them on their merits. Ideally, at this point, the specialist’s opinion is no longer evidence, as the fundamental evidence it represents is already accounted for. As a practical matter, the specialists opinion still counts to the extent that a person is uncertain that they have learned of all the specialist’s evidence and understood all the arguments. You have not argued that this uncertainty is and will likely remain significant in this case. Rather, it seemed that you were trying to dismiss an idea because it is unpopular.
I think our disagreement is relatively small. a few remaining points:
People don’t have the time or the ability to learn all the relevant evidence and arguments on every issue. Hell, I don’t have time to learn all the relevant evidence and arguments on every issue in my discipline, nevermind subjects that I know little about.
Sometimes we mainly care about what the answer is, not why.
I don’t always have time to explain all my reasons, so citing the fact that others agree with me is easier, and depending on the context, may be every bit as useful.
*Sometimes we mainly care about what the answer is, not why.
*I don’t always have time to explain all my reasons, so citing the fact that others agree with me is easier, and depending on the context, may be every bit as useful.
In these cases, where you don’t care, or can’t be bothered to explain, the reasons for a position, it seems you lack either the time or the interest to seriously debate the issue.
People don’t have the time or the ability to learn all the relevant evidence and arguments on every issue. Hell, I don’t have time to learn all the relevant evidence and arguments on every issue in my discipline, nevermind subjects that I know little about.
This can be a valid point when you have to make policy decisions about complicated issues, but it does not apply to your appeal to the majority that I objected to.
I didn’t just appeal to the majority, I mentioned scientists’ opinions explicitly in the sentence previous to the one you are objecting to.
You’ve argued that appealing to other peoples beliefs has few benefits (which I dispute) but unless I’m missing something you haven’t named a single cost. I’m sure there are some, but I’ll let you name them if you choose.
I’m starting to think that you primarily objected to the tone of my language. You don’t really want to stop people from discussing what other people believe.
I didn’t just appeal to the majority, I mentioned scientists’ opinions explicitly in the sentence previous to the one you are objecting to.
You mentioned scientists’ opinions not about the subjects that they study, but about the impact of intelligence on the quality of their work, which they are not likely to know more about than anyone else. If you had mentioned the opinions of psychologists who had studied the effects of intelligence on scientific productivity, that would be the sort of support you are claiming. Further, you weren’t even talking about a survey of scientists’ opinions, or other evidence about what they think; you just asserted what you think they think. Now, you could make the argument that the scientists would think that for the same reasons you do, or because you believe it is really true and they would notice, but in this case your beliefs about their opinions is not additional evidence.
You’ve argued that appealing to other peoples beliefs has few benefits (which I dispute) but unless I’m missing something you haven’t named a single cost. I’m sure there are some, but I’ll let you name them if you choose.
Well, I suppose I have not explicitly stated it, but the primary cost is that it displaces discussion of the more fundamental evidence about the issue that is supposedly informing the majority or expert opinion.
And you yourself argued elsewhere that in the political process of voting that attempts to aggregate opinions, “Voters are often uninformed about how policy affects their lives”.
Even with expert opinions, it can be hard to understand what the expert thinks. I have seen people go horribly wrong by applying an expert’s idea out of context. If you don’t understand an expert’s reasoning because it is too complicated, you probably don’t understand their position well enough to generalize it.
You don’t really want to stop people from discussing what other people believe.
What I object to is using a discussion of what other people believe to shut down discussion of an opposing belief.
This is a stronger modesty argument, as distinct from simply taking the majority opinion as one of the pieces of evidence for arriving at your own conclusion.
The two are compatible only when the preferred social feedback standards match the standards of rational thought. All other social standards necessarily come into conflict. Thus, all else being equal, a randomly-chosen standard is quite unlikely to be compatible with rationality.
In actual groups, the standards aren’t chosen randomly. But humans being what they are, they usually involve primate social dynamics and associational reasoning, neither of which lend themselves to the search for truth. Generally they involve social/political ‘games’ and power struggles.
The truth is not determined by voting, but the truth is often positively correlated with peoples’ opinions. It is rational to weigh other people’s opinions. If I disagree with someone, I must ask myself why I am more likely to be correct than they are.
Annoyance had already explained his reasons for his position, and you explained reasons for yours in the rest of your comment. Once we are discussing those reasons directly, there is no need to use majority opinion as a proxy for the relative strength of those reasons.
I disagree. People’s opinions are evidence and deserve weight. Smarter, more rational, people’s opinions deserve more weight. The opinions of scientists who specialize in a relevant subject deserve still more weight. Why shouldn’t we consider this type of evidence?
First, I should point out that what I initially objected to was an appeal to an assertion of raw majority, with no weighting based on rationality, intelligence, or specialization, and in which uninformed opinions are likely to drown out evidence-informed expert opinions.
Second, the reason the opinion of a specialist can be strong evidence is that the specialist is likely to have access to evidence not generally available or known, and have superior ability to process that evidence. So, when someone discovers that a specialist disagrees with them, they should seek to learn the evidence and arguments that informed the specialist’s opinions, and then evaluate them on their merits. Ideally, at this point, the specialist’s opinion is no longer evidence, as the fundamental evidence it represents is already accounted for. As a practical matter, the specialists opinion still counts to the extent that a person is uncertain that they have learned of all the specialist’s evidence and understood all the arguments. You have not argued that this uncertainty is and will likely remain significant in this case. Rather, it seemed that you were trying to dismiss an idea because it is unpopular.
I think our disagreement is relatively small. a few remaining points:
People don’t have the time or the ability to learn all the relevant evidence and arguments on every issue. Hell, I don’t have time to learn all the relevant evidence and arguments on every issue in my discipline, nevermind subjects that I know little about.
Sometimes we mainly care about what the answer is, not why.
I don’t always have time to explain all my reasons, so citing the fact that others agree with me is easier, and depending on the context, may be every bit as useful.
In these cases, where you don’t care, or can’t be bothered to explain, the reasons for a position, it seems you lack either the time or the interest to seriously debate the issue.
This can be a valid point when you have to make policy decisions about complicated issues, but it does not apply to your appeal to the majority that I objected to.
I didn’t just appeal to the majority, I mentioned scientists’ opinions explicitly in the sentence previous to the one you are objecting to.
You’ve argued that appealing to other peoples beliefs has few benefits (which I dispute) but unless I’m missing something you haven’t named a single cost. I’m sure there are some, but I’ll let you name them if you choose.
I’m starting to think that you primarily objected to the tone of my language. You don’t really want to stop people from discussing what other people believe.
You mentioned scientists’ opinions not about the subjects that they study, but about the impact of intelligence on the quality of their work, which they are not likely to know more about than anyone else. If you had mentioned the opinions of psychologists who had studied the effects of intelligence on scientific productivity, that would be the sort of support you are claiming. Further, you weren’t even talking about a survey of scientists’ opinions, or other evidence about what they think; you just asserted what you think they think. Now, you could make the argument that the scientists would think that for the same reasons you do, or because you believe it is really true and they would notice, but in this case your beliefs about their opinions is not additional evidence.
Well, I suppose I have not explicitly stated it, but the primary cost is that it displaces discussion of the more fundamental evidence about the issue that is supposedly informing the majority or expert opinion.
And you yourself argued elsewhere that in the political process of voting that attempts to aggregate opinions, “Voters are often uninformed about how policy affects their lives”.
Even with expert opinions, it can be hard to understand what the expert thinks. I have seen people go horribly wrong by applying an expert’s idea out of context. If you don’t understand an expert’s reasoning because it is too complicated, you probably don’t understand their position well enough to generalize it.
What I object to is using a discussion of what other people believe to shut down discussion of an opposing belief.
This is a stronger modesty argument, as distinct from simply taking the majority opinion as one of the pieces of evidence for arriving at your own conclusion.
Logical fallacy: stating a contingent proposition as a universal principle.
“sharp people still distinguish themselves by not assuming more than needed to keep the conversation going”
Sometimes the conversation shouldn’t be permitted to continue.
Are we looking to facilitate social interaction, or use rational argument to discover truth? The two are often, even usually, incompatible.
An interesting claim, please explain why you believe this to be true?
The two are compatible only when the preferred social feedback standards match the standards of rational thought. All other social standards necessarily come into conflict. Thus, all else being equal, a randomly-chosen standard is quite unlikely to be compatible with rationality.
In actual groups, the standards aren’t chosen randomly. But humans being what they are, they usually involve primate social dynamics and associational reasoning, neither of which lend themselves to the search for truth. Generally they involve social/political ‘games’ and power struggles.