Opinions without fact or reason leave us believing in nonsense

By David McElroy · November 12, 2017

I was getting frustrated with the interview Sunday afternoon, but I wanted to keep things civil and polite.

I was a guest on an Internet radio show and I’d been brought in for a political discussion about Donald Trump. One of the hosts is a woman who lives in England and isn’t fond of Trump. The other host is a man in Ohio who’s a big Trump supporter.

As we got started, I first tried to find out why the man supports Trump, so I asked him to outline what he likes about Trump’s performance as president so far. It seemed like a reasonable place to start, but things went downhill from there.

The man has a lot of opinions, but when I tried to narrow down why he believed those things, he frequently had to admit that he didn’t know the facts about the subjects. He was opposed to “illegal immigration,” for instance — and insisted he wasn’t opposed to immigration overall — but he finally admitted he didn’t have any idea how U.S. laws determine who’s allowed to immigrate legally.

On subject after subject today, most modern Americans have opinions which are not based on any reality. This man had firm opinions, but his opinions weighed his mind down so much that facts weren’t necessary. He hadn’t thought through the things he believed — and it seemed to surprise him to have someone pointing this out.

This is a very nice guy and I like him a lot. I’m not identifying him here because I don’t want to call him out or make fun of him. He doesn’t deserve that. It’s simply that what I experienced with him is typical of public discourse today — and it frustrates me.

One of the most common phrases I hear today is, “I have a right to my own opinion.” In the legal sense, this is certainly true, but the emphasis on this has had two profound effects on public discussion.

First, people tend to believe they’re supposed to have opinions about everything. Even the format of “news” programming reinforces that. These shows aren’t intended to inform us or help bridge gaps in understanding. They’re more like game shows.

“You people are on that side and the other people are on this side,” the host might as well say. “When the bell rings, y’all fight each other. Whoever fights best wins.”

This sort of shallow public fighting is a lousy way to figure out what’s true, but it makes members of the audience naturally feel as though they have to choose one side or the other — like spectators at a boxing match.

Second, if people feel that they’re supposed to choose sides — and if they’re encouraged to take one side or another about everything — that means they can’t possibly have reasoned positions about everything. Nobody could have a reasoned opinion about everything, so that means people unconsciously take positions for which they have no facts.

And because the people on television are so shallow and because it’s just a boxing match instead of reasoned discussion, it no longer occurs to people that the facts matter.

If you combine these two things, you end up with a society in which almost everybody has an opinion about almost everything — but almost nobody has the facts or solid reasoning to back up those opinions.

Our minds end up being weighed down by opinions which keep us from seeing what might be true. What’s worse, most people don’t even realize what they’re doing.

The truth is that you’re not required to have an opinion about everything.

You’re not required to have a solution to every problem in the world.

You’re not required to take a side in every fight.

Most of all, it’s very reasonable — even mature and brave — to be able to say, “I don’t know enough about this, so I don’t have an opinion.”

If you watch television “news” and read online sites that pander to one group or another — as most people do today — you’re going to feel certain that you’re right about what you believe. And you’re going to be a little lost when someone points out you have no facts with which to back up those opinions.

I don’t mind if people disagree with me. Many smart and reasonable people come to different conclusions than I do about a lot of things. That doesn’t bother me in the least. But it does bother me when someone takes a position without knowing enough about a subject or (maybe even worse) when he comes to an emotional conclusion and then cherry-picks facts to support his conclusion later.

The man on the interview with me today is a good guy. I’ve been on their show three or four times now. I believe he has a good heart and wants what is best for everyone. I just think he’s been seduced by this popular belief today that it’s fine to have passionate opinions without having the facts or reason to support them.

As I say so often, turning off your television and other sources of “news” will go a long way in helping you learn to think again in rational ways, at least as much as we humans are capable of it. You’ll be happier if you get away from that shallow world of artificial conflict over things you can do nothing to change.

Most of all, though, be brave enough to say, “I don’t know.”

Share on Social Networks

If you have problems with high blood pressure, I’d like to encourage you to consider making serious changes to your diet. There might be some people who don’t have any choice but to start taking prescription medications for high blood pressure, but I’d like to tell you that I have completely eliminated my issue by eliminating all sugar and almost all carbohydrates. (A couple of months ago, my blood pressure hit 185/144, which was dangerously high — considered stage 3 hypertension.) By completely changing my eating habits, I’m down 22 pounds and my blood pressure is now in the “ideal” range — without taking any medication. In addition, I sleep better and I have more energy. Getting away from the sugar-laden mess that we generally refer to as “highly processed food” has been a life-changer for me. Now my challenge is to avoid slipping back into old habits — by eating in the dangerous ways that almost everyone in our society has come to see as normal.

When I first heard about this, I thought it must be satire. When I discovered it was real, I was appalled, but I still thought it must be a one-time thing from some nutty activist. But it turns out it’s the latest bit of pandering to a bunch of far-left activists who believe that a man can become a woman if he decides to claim he’s a woman. As everybody knows, men have prostate glands. Women do not. Period. End of story. Men can get prostate cancer. Women cannot. But political activists are so eager to pretend that a man claiming to be a “trans woman” is really a woman that they are insisting that “women” be included in public health messages about the issue. This is nothing but political virtue-signaling. If you’re a man, you know which parts you have. You know that you ought to be screened. Nobody is made any safer by dragging far-left gender ideology into simple medical reality.

Every time someone tries to tighten requirements around the use of absentee ballots, I hear screams from Democrats and others on the political left that such efforts are nothing but “suppression of black voters.” These protests have never made sense to me, especially because it’s never been a secret that absentee ballot fraud goes on all the time in certain areas. (Everybody knew it when I worked in politics.) The people who engage in such fraud are rarely caught — often because the local political establishment approves of the crime — but a Democrat who won a primary election in Clay County, Alabama, last year has pleaded guilty to this sort of cheating. Terry Andrew Heflin was running for a place on the Clay County Commission. He was caught ordering seven absentee ballots in the names of various voters and sending them to his post office box — after which he used the ballots to vote absentee for himself seven time. Did he have other people cast additional fraudulent ballots? We’ll never know. But in a primary in which he was able to win with only 141 votes, it wouldn’t take many fraudulent votes to change the election. The next time you hear “civil rights activists” claim that it’s just “voter suppression” to hurt blacks which is at the root of efforts to stop this fraud, remember Terry Heflin. If you care about fair and honest elections, ballot security and voter identity should matter to you.

A state legislator in Maine has been stripped of the ability to speak in the state Legislature — and her votes are not being counted on legislative issues — all because she made a truthful social media post. Rep. Laurel Libby (R-Auburn, Maine) opposes allowing boys to compete against girls’ teams in school athletics and she’s become known for making an issue of it. On Feb. 17, she posted on Facebook about a recent example that she found outrageous. She posted side-by-side photos of a boy named John who competed last year in a state track event and won fifth place against other boys two years ago — and a photo of the same boy (now called Katie) who won first place in the same event this year against girls. Whether you find this outrageous or not, Libby is clearly being honest and truthful about the objective facts of an issue of public importance. But the state Legislature censured her. Democrats decreed that she could not speak in the House and that her votes would not count on legislation — until she apologized for the outrage of telling the truth. She refused and her constituents have been unrepresented in the state House since then. The people who promote this ideology are out of touch with reality and won’t rest until they force the rest of us to join them in this delusion. But even if you agree with “trans” ideology, you should be appalled at this heavy-handed attack on political speech.

The late Steve Jobs was at the center of our culture’s transition from analog to digital. He co-founded Apple Computer. He led the team that revolutionized personal computing with the first Macintosh. As CEO of Apple, he led the development of the iPhone and later the iPad. You would think the children of such a man would be surrounded by technology. But Jobs and his wife Laureen didn’t let their children use iPads. Their home had few screens of any kind. Even though Jobs spent most of his time developing and selling Macs and iPhones and iPads, he was home with his wife and children for dinner when he was in town. The family ate together at a simple wooden table in their kitchen — and there were no digital devices or focus on popular culture. Instead, he’s said to have guided his family toward deep discussions of art, philosophy and education — with no iPads to be found. If the man who guided the development of such products chose a different path for his own children, does that suggest that his digital experience taught him that children need human connection, not screens? And does it suggest the possibility that we might be better off if we made the same choice for our families?

Related Posts