Over the last while I observed, that discussions got into a pattern of ending in personal remarking, discrediting the integrity of members.
I want to share my views on this phenomena.
There are essentially two things which can be discussed:
Facts and Opinions.
If I state something, I say,: this is fact, not opinion.
Statements describe facts like: B. did,,that,,.
Statements are up for discussion, and if someone can show evidently, that B. did ,,not do that’’, we all can learn by widening our knowledge.
Opinions are my own judgmental views, of which I can change/ dismiss/ hold onto, for whatever reasons, or without reason. I also can chose to not have an opinion on whatever matter. These opinions can be discussed.
This all sounds pretty straight forward and should not lead to any personal frictions.
The problem starts, when opinions are presented as facts, but not clearly earmarked.
Then, if that:’’fact’’ is shown to be nonfactual, even to the point, that the opposite is fact, not only the truth has come out, but also the pretence of the former, where the member has called something a fact, which in reality was an opinion/ view held . And suddenly the whole discussion becomes a personal issue of : I am wrong/right. IE. A case of survival—
It seems that the polarity good –bad has entered the discussion on the issue of true-false, in a way: trueth=good, non-true=bad, person speaking the truth=good person, person speaking lies= bad person.
To bring back the discussion in non-polar mode it would be necessary for the person who called something a fact without being so, to come forth and admit the mistake, ie re-instate creditability.
If, instead of that, the member who made the misconception evident is attacked personally by the member at fault, then the discussion becomes meaningless.
A good moderator sees these things and would recommend the cause of action, necessary to bring the discussion back into non-polar mode on the personal levels.
In my view:
---history creates facts, but the opinions of our wishful thinking don,t change them.
Our interpretations do not change the information they are based on. The Organon does not rewrite itself according to our own wishes.
---It will always be an incomplete and cumbersome undertaking to form an opinion from hear-say, on face-value, believe, and then afterwards try to back this up by facts. It is --in my opinion-- much easier to gather first all relevant factual information and then place an opinion on it.
Any views on the subject for a more positive tone?
|