Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So if a meteorologist holds the opinion that it is likely to rain tomorrow, his opinion isn't any better than that of a person who knows nothing about the weather and has flipped a coin to determine that it will be sunny tomorrow? You can't be serious.
There are two types of opinion matters:
1. Matters where there is no underlying truth, such as "Red is the best color."
2. Matters where there is an underlying truth, but that truth is not easily objectively demonstrable, such as "String theory best explains the origins of the universe" or "It is going to rain tomorrow."
Opinions of the first type are arbitrary, and reasoning doesn't help one hold a better opinion. Opinions of the second type are not arbitrary, however, because there is truth to be had. Since there is actually such a thing as right or wrong regarding the second type, once can utilize good or bad reasoning when developing an opinion.
There is truth to the question of what happens after death. There is also truth to the question of whether the physical brain has experiences once it dies. It is clearly an "opinion" of the second type, thus not all opinions are equal.
Do you really believe all opinions are equal in all matters? Think about some unknown scientific question, such as how best to explain dark matter. Do you think all of the scientists who have years of training and are extremely intelligent aren't more likely to hold a good opinion about the explanation of dark matter than some average Joe walking down the street?
A meteorologist is not giving an opinion, they are giving a prediction based on an analysis of data. The fact that they sometimes get it wrong doesn't change that. Not the same thing as what is being discussed here.
And neither is your second example because the opinion aspect of the statement is that string theory is the "best" explanation. It's an explanation, that's a underlying factual statement. Best is a subjective statement, and thus an opinion.
The fact that some people have more information to take into consideration in forming an opinion may make a discussion by them more robust and interesting. It does not, however, mean they are automatically more correct. Besides, the average Joe walking down the street very likely has no opinion on dark matter. But they may very well have an opinion on whether or not they want to donate their organs upon their death, and yes, that opinion is in fact every bit as valid as yours.
So if a meteorologist holds the opinion that it is likely to rain tomorrow, his opinion isn't any better than that of a person who knows nothing about the weather and has flipped a coin to determine that it will be sunny tomorrow? You can't be serious.
There are two types of opinion matters:
1. Matters where there is no underlying truth, such as "Red is the best color."
2. Matters where there is an underlying truth, but that truth is not easily objectively demonstrable, such as "String theory best explains the origins of the universe" or "It is going to rain tomorrow."
Opinions of the first type are arbitrary, and reasoning doesn't help one hold a better opinion. Opinions of the second type are not arbitrary, however, because there is truth to be had. Since there is actually such a thing as right or wrong regarding the second type, once can utilize good or bad reasoning when developing an opinion.
There is truth to the question of what happens after death. There is also truth to the question of whether the physical brain has experiences once it dies. It is clearly an "opinion" of the second type, thus not all opinions are equal.
Do you really believe all opinions are equal in all matters? Think about some unknown scientific question, such as how best to explain dark matter. Do you think all of the scientists who have years of training and are extremely intelligent aren't more likely to hold a good opinion about the explanation of dark matter than some average Joe walking down the street?
No meteorologist do not have opinions they work with scientific facts and outcomes. whether or not to donate your organs after death is a philosophical and moral question which would cause you to have a opinion.
A meteorologist is not giving an opinion, they are giving a prediction based on an analysis of data. The fact that they sometimes get it wrong doesn't change that. Not the same thing as what is being discussed here.
That prediction is an opinion based on an analysis of data, just in the same way that a doctor might say "In my professional opinion..."
That is not unlike saying "The human brain must be living in order to be conscious." That also involves an analysis of scientific data.
Keep in mind that I am not saying my view is the only well-reasoned or authoritative view. What I am saying is that claiming "This is all just a matter of opinion anyway!" doesn't actually imply there aren't good opinions, bad opinions, correct claims and false claims.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74
And neither is your second example because the opinion aspect of the statement is that string theory is the "best" explanation. It's an explanation, that's a underlying factual statement. Best is a subjective statement, and thus an opinion.
In this case, "best" is not a subjective statement, at least not in the sense in which it is being used here. "Best fit" is a statistical term that refers to an explanation or model having the least amount of variance from the existing data. Do you think the statement "Gravity is the best explanation for why objects fall to earth" is a subjective statement because it contains the word "best"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by emm74
The fact that some people have more information to take into consideration in forming an opinion may make a discussion by them more robust and interesting. It does not, however, mean they are automatically more correct. Besides, the average Joe walking down the street very likely has no opinion on dark matter. But they may very well have an opinion on whether or not they want to donate their organs upon their death, and yes, that opinion is in fact every bit as valid as yours.
I never said they were "more correct." I said their opinion is better reasoned and more informed. That probably does make them more likely to be correct, though. I doubt you dispute that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Howest2008
No meteorologist do not have opinions they work with scientific facts and outcomes. whether or not to donate your organs after death is a philosophical and moral question which would cause you to have a opinion.
1. So it is a scientific fact that it will or will not rain tomorrow? Possibly, but what about when two meteorologists disagree? What about when a doctor says "In my professional opinion...?" Facts are, by definition, indisputably true. I don't think we can say that about weather forecasts.
2. I said that my opinion was of the second variety regarding my statement about what happens to the human brain after death, not about organ donation generally. However, I do think moral questions are of the second variety as well. If you disagree, then you must also think there is ultimately no such thing as true or false moral statements. Are you willing to bite that bullet? If a 9/11 terrorist were to say "It was a morally good action to carry out the terrorist attack," would you respond with "Well, it's just an opinion anyway"? Of course not. You don't really think moral statements are like "Red is the best color." You think there is such a thing as moral truth.
I'll say the same thing I said to the above poster: Keep in mind that I am not saying my view is the only well-reasoned or authoritative view. What I am saying is that claiming "This is all just a matter of opinion anyway!" doesn't actually imply there aren't good opinions, bad opinions, correct claims and false claims.
Last edited by Wittgenstein's Ghost; 07-08-2018 at 03:48 PM..
No, it shouldn't be respected because the dead person has nothing at stake and cannot be harmed. The living person who might be saved by the organs has everything at stake and can be harmed.
They make the decision before they pass.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost
I would support legislation that doesn't allow religious exceptions to this policy.
Why am I not suprised?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost
I don't see why the family's desires are relevant here. The family didn't own Smiths heart when Smith was living. Why should they own it now?
2. The problem isn't undefined. I've defined it quite clearly: Roughly 7300 people are dying mostly preventable deaths because they do not have access to organs.
3. Of course people die every day. That isn't a justification for allowing preventable deaths. I don't think you actually believe that preventing the deaths of innocent people isn't a good thing.
4. No, of course not. Do you really think my style of writing and the quality of my ideas is what one would expect from a grade schooler?
1. 20 people a day is what you are really concerned about? There are far more important issues in society you should focus on.
2. Preventable? I have legal or moral obligation in preventing deaths nor would I want my organs to be automatically given to someone without me being able to at least judge that person who may need them.
3. I don't look for problems to solve that aren't mine.
4. Its not the writing style or quality of ideas what you are coming up with but the overall concept.
(But on my end it was just a question)
Nah. I'm all for opt-out instead of opt-in for donating but not compulsory. I don't know why the heck people are so eager to give away every right they have because they see a 'good cause' but can't quite wrap their brains around the big picture or see the lack of freedoms and corruptions that follow when we give ultimate control of things to specific groups. If you can't wrap your brain around it just remember "it's bad" and let it go. Trust me.
Dead people don't have desires or intentions, so therefore it is impossible to take something against their will.
Dead people do have desires and intentions, and they express them through Wills and Codicils, through Living Wills, and through Advance Directives.
Dead people also express their intentions and desires through any number of legal vehicles, like corporations, partnerships, limited liability companies and trust, which continue to function long after their dead.
The rights of the dead are also protected, as patents, copyrights et al extend long after someone dies, in some cases up to 100 years after they're dead.
Reproductive rights of the dead also exist, for sperm and ovum donors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wittgenstein's Ghost
2. The problem isn't undefined. I've defined it quite clearly: Roughly 7300 people are dying mostly preventable deaths because they do not have access to organs.
That's a mere 0.002% of the population.
And those people die anyway. Yes, the success rate for a heart-lung transplant is 82%, but only initially...5 years later the success rate is only 50%, meaning half of them die within 5 years, so at most it might extend the life of some people a few years, but it is not a guarantee of survival.
Most organ donations are from someone that is not technically dead. So in essence you are asking someone to unplug their loved one and end their life. You can’t force someone to end a life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
