- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
During a recent debate on a thread at this forum the other day, a forum member made two mind-boggling statements. First the prolific poster implied that observation and evaluation are not valid methods of forming an opinion. Second, the member stated that the only person who is allowed to comment on an occupation is a member of that occupation.
Observation and evaluation are not valid methods of forming an opinion on a subject? Zounds! This is a statement of mind-boggling proportions!
Out entire mental process of learning and decision-making is based on the concept of observation and evaluation. Its how we learn what things are, what they do, how things work, and how to react to events.
OBSERVATON: It’s a hot red thing that hurt my hand when I touched it.
EVALUATION: I shouldn’t touch hot red things because they hurt.
OPINION: People should not touch hot red things or they will get hurt.
It’s that simple. By refuting the power of observation and evaluation you negate our ability to think! If this ill-conceived statement were true, our entire species would be reduced to the level of primitive zombies without the ability to think, only react.
Oh wait… drug addicts would be unlikely to be affected by this. Or the writers at the NDP who compose statements concerning the military.
Back to the point. Our male prolific poster (Mr. PP, for short) implies that any opinion derived from observation or evaluation about something they experienced is invalid. Even if the human race were to survive this astounding leap of logic, it would have an earth-shattering impact on the field of knowledge. Observation and evaluation in order to reach an opinion (aka a conclusion or theory) is a basic principle of the Scientific Method. Removing acceptance of observation and evaluation would wipe entire fields of study!
Goodbye, Behavioral Sciences. Your opinions on social and personal interactions based on observation and evaluation are useless.
So long, Psychology. It doesn’t matter how many patients you observe, who you talk to you, what you read, your opinion doesn’t matter. Unless you are actually a patient suffering from a condition you claim to have an opinion on.
Bye-bye, Counter-Terrorism Analysts. You can observe and evaluate enemy force actions, and form an opinion on their future actions, but we wont listen. La-la-al-la-la-la-la-la. Unless you are actually a terrorist, you have no right to observe their actions and gie an opinion about their activities and motivations.
Sayonara, Forensics Sciences. What right do you have to observe and evaluate and then form an opinion on how a person died? How dare you! You weren’t even there when it happened! You didn’t even know the person!
This would also have a catastrophic impact on our entire legal system.
If no one is allowed to form an opinion based on observation and evaluation, then all witnesses would be banned from court cases. After all, they only observed the crime, and evaluated that a crime was being committed. Get rid if them! It doesn’t matter what they saw or what they percived, or what their opinion is. Same with subject matter experts. It doesn’t matter what you they observed, or studied, or read, or who they talked to, or how many books they wrote. Unless the SME actually is a criminal who commits a specific act of crime, the SME has no right to comment on the probable behaviour of a criminal who commits that specific act of crime.
It gets worse.
When combined with Mr. PP’s second statement, the results are even more fantastic. Specifically, only a person in a specific occupation is allowed to have an opinion about that specific occupation. Thus:
Only an infantryman can provide an opinion on the infantry or other infantrymen.
Only a combat engineer can provide an opinion on combat engineering.
Only an air force member is allowed to talk about the air force.
Only a CF member is allowed to express an opinion about the CF and its members.
Only a Canadian is allowed to speak about Canada.
Logically, then the following are also true…
Only a police officer is qualified to have an opinion about police forces or police actions.
Only an Aboriginal person is allowed to speak about issues related to Aboriginals.
Only a politician is about to speak on political matters.
Only a member of the NDP can give an opinion on NDP policy.
Only an Afghani is allowed to talk about Afghanistan customs and culture.
Only an Iranian is allowed to have an opinion about Iranian matters.
And even more fields of knowledge would disappear…
Hit the road, Paleontology. Unless you are a dinosaur you are not authorized to speak on the subject of dinosaurs.
Away with thee, Medieval History. What nerve these professors have talking about feudal lords and villains. Did they ever rule a castle, did they ever till a field?
Hasta la vista, Babylonian, Sumerian and Mayan cultures. As if you really existed anyway! You’re only the result of observation and evaluation from a field of study that shouldn’t even exist anyway!
Oh and that nice lady from Calgary? The one who spent all that time in Afghanistan observing and evaluating and forming opinions that she will put into a research document? The one who talked to our guys and girls, lived with them, slept with them? Somebody should tell the poor old girl that according to Mr. PP, her opinion is unwanted and invalid. Might as well tear up the research manuscript right now!
In closing, the point is demonstrated. Choosing to deny results based on observation and evaluation is merely a poor attempt to avoid hearing things you don’t want to hear or believe. Further, if only the person in a specific occupation is allowed to speak about that occupation or that trade, or that ethnicity, or that nationality, or that subject, then there are a lot of people on this site who are not qualified to speak on world events, politics, gas prices, political parties, aboriginal land claims, or dozens of other topics. Claiming an opinion is invalid and then confounding your own logic by providing opinions on subjects you aren’t an expert on smacks of the worst hypocrisy and faulty reasoning. Any person is allowed to have an opinion. That opinion is more powerful if it based on observation and evaluation resulting in the formation of an opinion. And not everyone will have the same opinion.
Have a good day Mr. PP.
Observation and evaluation are not valid methods of forming an opinion on a subject? Zounds! This is a statement of mind-boggling proportions!
Out entire mental process of learning and decision-making is based on the concept of observation and evaluation. Its how we learn what things are, what they do, how things work, and how to react to events.
OBSERVATON: It’s a hot red thing that hurt my hand when I touched it.
EVALUATION: I shouldn’t touch hot red things because they hurt.
OPINION: People should not touch hot red things or they will get hurt.
It’s that simple. By refuting the power of observation and evaluation you negate our ability to think! If this ill-conceived statement were true, our entire species would be reduced to the level of primitive zombies without the ability to think, only react.
Oh wait… drug addicts would be unlikely to be affected by this. Or the writers at the NDP who compose statements concerning the military.
Back to the point. Our male prolific poster (Mr. PP, for short) implies that any opinion derived from observation or evaluation about something they experienced is invalid. Even if the human race were to survive this astounding leap of logic, it would have an earth-shattering impact on the field of knowledge. Observation and evaluation in order to reach an opinion (aka a conclusion or theory) is a basic principle of the Scientific Method. Removing acceptance of observation and evaluation would wipe entire fields of study!
Goodbye, Behavioral Sciences. Your opinions on social and personal interactions based on observation and evaluation are useless.
So long, Psychology. It doesn’t matter how many patients you observe, who you talk to you, what you read, your opinion doesn’t matter. Unless you are actually a patient suffering from a condition you claim to have an opinion on.
Bye-bye, Counter-Terrorism Analysts. You can observe and evaluate enemy force actions, and form an opinion on their future actions, but we wont listen. La-la-al-la-la-la-la-la. Unless you are actually a terrorist, you have no right to observe their actions and gie an opinion about their activities and motivations.
Sayonara, Forensics Sciences. What right do you have to observe and evaluate and then form an opinion on how a person died? How dare you! You weren’t even there when it happened! You didn’t even know the person!
This would also have a catastrophic impact on our entire legal system.
If no one is allowed to form an opinion based on observation and evaluation, then all witnesses would be banned from court cases. After all, they only observed the crime, and evaluated that a crime was being committed. Get rid if them! It doesn’t matter what they saw or what they percived, or what their opinion is. Same with subject matter experts. It doesn’t matter what you they observed, or studied, or read, or who they talked to, or how many books they wrote. Unless the SME actually is a criminal who commits a specific act of crime, the SME has no right to comment on the probable behaviour of a criminal who commits that specific act of crime.
It gets worse.
When combined with Mr. PP’s second statement, the results are even more fantastic. Specifically, only a person in a specific occupation is allowed to have an opinion about that specific occupation. Thus:
Only an infantryman can provide an opinion on the infantry or other infantrymen.
Only a combat engineer can provide an opinion on combat engineering.
Only an air force member is allowed to talk about the air force.
Only a CF member is allowed to express an opinion about the CF and its members.
Only a Canadian is allowed to speak about Canada.
Logically, then the following are also true…
Only a police officer is qualified to have an opinion about police forces or police actions.
Only an Aboriginal person is allowed to speak about issues related to Aboriginals.
Only a politician is about to speak on political matters.
Only a member of the NDP can give an opinion on NDP policy.
Only an Afghani is allowed to talk about Afghanistan customs and culture.
Only an Iranian is allowed to have an opinion about Iranian matters.
And even more fields of knowledge would disappear…
Hit the road, Paleontology. Unless you are a dinosaur you are not authorized to speak on the subject of dinosaurs.
Away with thee, Medieval History. What nerve these professors have talking about feudal lords and villains. Did they ever rule a castle, did they ever till a field?
Hasta la vista, Babylonian, Sumerian and Mayan cultures. As if you really existed anyway! You’re only the result of observation and evaluation from a field of study that shouldn’t even exist anyway!
Oh and that nice lady from Calgary? The one who spent all that time in Afghanistan observing and evaluating and forming opinions that she will put into a research document? The one who talked to our guys and girls, lived with them, slept with them? Somebody should tell the poor old girl that according to Mr. PP, her opinion is unwanted and invalid. Might as well tear up the research manuscript right now!
In closing, the point is demonstrated. Choosing to deny results based on observation and evaluation is merely a poor attempt to avoid hearing things you don’t want to hear or believe. Further, if only the person in a specific occupation is allowed to speak about that occupation or that trade, or that ethnicity, or that nationality, or that subject, then there are a lot of people on this site who are not qualified to speak on world events, politics, gas prices, political parties, aboriginal land claims, or dozens of other topics. Claiming an opinion is invalid and then confounding your own logic by providing opinions on subjects you aren’t an expert on smacks of the worst hypocrisy and faulty reasoning. Any person is allowed to have an opinion. That opinion is more powerful if it based on observation and evaluation resulting in the formation of an opinion. And not everyone will have the same opinion.
Have a good day Mr. PP.
