171–176 of 176 posts
This brings to mind a fantastically lucid comic about the utility of questions vs answers: http://kiriakakis.net/comics/mused/a-day-at-the-park After all, the an opinion is just an answer to the question, "What do I think of this?"
Please submit this to HN. That's fabulous. (It's also much better than a few similar conversations I've been having myself.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One analysis of this is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident_(fallacy) but there might also be other ways of thinking about it.
The example given in that shows it's not the same thing at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Converse_accident
While I don't mean to say that these provide a full analysis of the issue you're talking about, I don't see how they're unrelated to it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Please submit this to HN. That's fabulous. (It's also much better than a few similar conversations I've been having myself.)
I took your suggestion and posted it, let's see if it gets any traction
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that pedrocr is from Portugal so in case you're learning Brazilian Portuguese you should consider that Brazilians usually use "estar + present participle" where the Portuguese use "estar a + infinitive" (for example "estou a falar" vs. "estou falando"). Brazilians thus have "estar sendo" which can be used in many cases where English has "is being", but as a non-native speaker I'm not sure what I can claim abo…
Thank you for the explanation. This clarifies why I haven't (consciously) seen the "estou a + infinitive" form yet - the Spanish and Brazilian Portuguese forms look more familiar to me. :-)
"O comboio está a chegar."
(plus different phonology)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In that case, why not just say that you simply don't know enough to have an informed opinion? Up against a dishonest debater, this is exploitable to lessen your influence, even if your position is relatively stronger, against (unsubstantiated) claims of being an expert. "ball_of_lint claims to be uninformed and doesn't have an opinion. That's okay, listen to me, I'm an expert"
So you'd rather win one debate at the cost of loosing reputation for years? If someone strongly claims they know something and I later find out that they were wrong, I simply can't trust that person ever again.
I'm glad you're a critical enough thinker to do that (although it's unfortunate that you don't account for honest conviction or that person obtaining further understanding such that they change their position; after all, not all strong claims revealed to be wrong are meant to deceive). Not everyone is that kind of critical thinker, especially up against a savvy, dishonest debater/character/charlatan. Some people just keep shouting "I know the answer" or "Believe me!" to every question or issue and they end up with a following.
I have realized over the years that it is wise to be naturally skeptical of any opinion that is strong, either positive or negative. People who have an appreciation for gray areas, even if they ultimately do have a preference, tend to be a lot more emotionally balanced than those who maintain a very strong stance on something. I have noticed this so consistently over the last 15 years that I now consider it a fundame…
That's only true for opinions that are not generally accepted. I believe you have strong opinions about all sorts of things, e.g. you probably have a strong stance against slavery. Take this strong stance 300 years back, and you would be seen as an emotionally unbalanced person, by your standard. I'm glad there are people with strong opinions. The world would be a much darker place if everyone was always on the fence…