|
heartfeltsub -> RE: An open mind..... (10/9/2007 11:28:18 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bobkgin
quote:
ORIGINAL: heartfeltsub
The problem, not that i agree with the position that i am about to comment on, is that personal experience is not considered to be conclusive evidence and therefore no worth listening to, to some people. While it might not be documented and researched evidence, personal experience, in my opinion, is well worth listening to as a source of additional points of view.
heartfelt
I agree.
But it is also important to keep in mind that personal experience as relayed through a public medium is not necessarily accurate, and certainly is subjective, with all the potential problems inherent with being too subjective.
Unless I can verify the information, I cannot rule out the possibility errors were made in the reporting of it.
Thus it is Indicative, but not Conclusive evidence that the opinion stated is one to be chosen as fact.
Most of the threads I read have some people arguing one way, and other people contradicting the first group. When opinions contradict, whose opinion should be chosen as the "right" one?
If the majority says the world is flat, should I believe them?
If the majority are bigotted against XYZ, should I believe them when they speak of XYZ?
These are some of the reasons why I do not treat an opinion as Conclusive Evidence. All an opinion demonstrates is that this is what the opinion-holder believes (and that does not account for deliberate deception, which also occurs in some people).
Can feel myself being sucked into a potentially endless debate even as i type. No where did i say that opinions should be considered as conclusive evidence, and i am well aware that even the most well-meaning individual can pass on their personal observations in an inaccurate manner, colored by any number of things. In fact, i am not sure if the realm of human experience can ever be considered conclusive evidence, even though it is often used as the basis of scientific research.
However, even in a court of law, where it has been documented by many studies (no, i'm not citing any of them here) that eye-witness testimonies are far less reliable than forensic evidence, eye-witness testimony can create a preponderous of evidence of someone's guilt or innocence. i am not so arrogant an individual that if most everyone i ask about a certain subject gives personal experience that flies in the face of my current stance on the topic that i won't take what they say into account and conclude that my current stance may not be the whole picture and that i might need to incorporate some additional ideas into my viewpoint.
That to me is the essence of an open mind, the ability, the willingness to admit that i may not know everything, that i may not be right about everything and that others have information and knowledge that i might not currently possess, and to do so not just in word but also in deed. And then based on the input of that additional information, i am willing to consider if my stance needs to be adjusted. Receiving conflicting information does not necessitate a changing of my position, but it does necessitate, at least for me, the need to consider if my position is well founded.
* Edited to add an additional thought.
heartfelt
|
|
|
|
