By Luther Conigliarro
Today it would seem that people have opinions about everything.
From, the best careers, to worse careers. Best restaurants, to okay
Dinning, Vacation hot spots, vacation "nots" To best cars to own, best places to live.. To What's a marriage, to homosexuality, to Well, you get the point.
So, Let me put this under two headings
As a Philosopher myself we must put this in context..,
First, the theoretical significants
Of an opinion and then its practical
Significants it's important to note that when human beings were developing what we call opinions; what we were in fact doing was developing a theory of probability
The only power a skeptic has
Many people today that fall into relativistic-pragmatism are really simply skeptics. These are the folks that say things like, "everything is just a matter of opinion" Or, They might even say,.."Every opinion is as good as every other opinion"
Of course these ideas pose greater problems for the relativist, Since the Law of non contradiction is always in full view. And, to mention the Law of identity as well is usually violated here at this point in order to make such statements. Never the less, this is not always so clear to them, and thus they need someone with eyes to see, to show them what they can't see due to blind spots.
The apostle Paul said as for the believer (not the skeptic) "The weapons we fight with are mighty to demolish arguments and illogical pretenses."
Show them their blind spots.
For example: Suppose that someone has an opinion that, "all Christians are idiots." Then, a Christian walks up who has 2 doctorates in Philosophy, and teaches and lectures all around the country on a large host of topics informs this person that Certainly, not all Christians are idiots!
The only weapon a skeptic has is his clothing himself or herself pragmatic relativism. Why? Because it's easy to play the (We don't know, and you don't either game)
For instance: If say in a court of law during a (murder trial of a woman who was also raped) a prosecutor had a mountain of evidence against the defendant; from an eye witness that saw him leave with the victim that night, to having the victims skin cells under his finger nails, to scratches on the defendants face and hands that looked like defensive wounds. To even his D.N.A evidence on the victim. Sounds like a pretty straight forward case right? Well, not exactly.
Introduce the defense attorney and he plays the skeptic, and he tells the jury that "the defendant danced with the victim that night at the club. That's where the victims skin cells under his finger nails came from. And the scratches on his face were from a fall in the bathtub the defendant had been in 12 hours before their date. Then he tells the jury about other men that the victim had been involved with over the last few months sexually. And anyone of them could have killed her. And "we don't know what happened that night to the victim. And nobody does.."
And this is a classic skeptic move. I'm sure you've seen it with other issues as well.
Which brings me to philosophical defeaters
A defeater in philosophy, is a argument and or fact that gives new information to a situation.
For example: Let's suppose you and I were driving in my car; then, you see me turn on my windshield wipers because I'm under the opinion that it might rain. Then you inform me that we're driving in the Sahara desert, and it hasn't rained in 6 months.. What you did was, you had just introduced a defeater
I had a opinion that it was going to rain, then you informed me of the facts on the ground. Thus defeating my former view.
Helping people to see that their opinions are sometimes silly, illogical, and flat out incorrect at times is one of the best ways of making the world a better place.
