Thinking About Thinking: Thinking Errors Part II

In my earlier post about thinking errors, I mentioned several logical fallacies and attempted to give examples of how they are used in modern political rhetoric. This is important. Learning these helps us to know how to ask the right questions to hold people accountable for their assertions. For example, I've been told, "The only reason Christians oppose government assistance to the poor is because they are racist." This is a classic Argumentum ad Hominem, or attack against the person. This statement, given as a response to my assertion that perhaps we should reduce federal spending in entitlement programs, and move to a state centered solution that supports private charities, did not respond to my argument, but in a round about way, attacked me. The response to an argumentum ad hominem is not to get defensive, "I'm not a racist." This shifts the focus of the debate away from the topic at hand. The response properly is, "Ok, assuming that what you say about me is true, it has nothing to do with whether or not reducing government spending on entitlemnet and shifting the responsibility to states and private charities is a better use of our resources when it comes to helping the poor. What do you have to say about that?"

Understanding logical fallacies helps us ask the right questions.

I've decided to name a new logical fallacy. Are you ready? Yes, I know, I 'm not some great philosopher of history who has made a careful study of these things. I have, however, noticed that people will often try to win an argument with what I've decided to call the "Fallacy of Opinion." People, when asked to defend an assertion that they make, will fall back on the statement, "Well, it's just my opinion." After making this pronouncement, the person then assumes an air of invincibility, as if they have solemnly declared from the Chair of Peter an incontrovertible truth.

And, after all, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Ok. That's fine. People are entitled to their opinion. What seems to have been forgotten, however, is that opinions can be wrong.

This takes me back to when Blessed Pope John Paul II was in St. Louis. There were people who were venomously anti-Catholic passing out pamphlets and brochures on the streets outside the dome where Blessed John Paul was going to be celebrating Mass. I collected a few of these pamphlets, which were filled with assertions about what Catholics believe that were not true. I approached one of the young men passing these pamphlets. He greeted me cordially, and asked me if I would like one of his brochures. I explained to him that I already had one, had read it, and that the information that was inside of it about what Catholics believe is wrong. I pointed to 3 specific examples of statements it made about what Catholics believe, things that we really don't believe. His response, "Well, this is just our opinion."

I said, "Yes, but it's not correct. We don't really believe these things."

"Well, it's just our opinion," he said again.

"I understand that," I said, "but you are passing out misinformation. Your brochure says things that are not true."

"It's just our opinion, man." He said...again.

"Your opinion is wrong." I said, and walked away recognizing that this individual was invincibly ignorant.

Having an opinion does not shield one from questioning. The reason is because an opinion is an interpretation of something. If I have an opinion about something, what that means is that I have looked at something and formed an individual interpretation of the matter. It is possible that I am looking at the thing wrongly. It is possible that I have misinterpreted something, or missed something, or been in a bad mood. Anything can affect my opinion of something. That's why stating that something is simply my opinion is not a logical defense of an assertion.

There is also a qualitative difference between the opinions, "vanilla is better than chocolate," and "Christians hate gays." One is a matter of personal preference. The other is a statement of sweeping generalization. Ok, you like vanilla better than chocolate. That's fine. But I'm not going to let you get away with characterizing an entire group of people with a sweeping generalization without proof that it's true. People used to make sweeping generalizations like this, we called it racism and prejudice.

The response to someone, when they have finally been backed into a corner and have to punt their indefensible position by saying, "Well, it's just my opinion," or, "Well, that's just what I think," is to ask them on what they are basing their opinion. I often assume a stance of ignorance: "I just want to know what facts, or polls or any other proof your basing your opinion on, because I have a different opinion based on what I've seen, and I want to know whether what I've seen is accurate or not."

It really is ok to point out to someone that their "opinion" probably is not based on any fact or logic at all. Just because it is their "opinion" doesn't make it immune from questioning.

But then, that's just my opinion.