Does the premise upon which a given opinion may be based have to be validated or can it be a plausible premise in some or most cases? Would it still be as logical as an opinion formed from validated premises? Put more simply, should you have to prove the reason for you opinion with actual examples, or can plausible ones suffice?
2006-11-10 10:59:17 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
*** I see very well written responses here... however, let us not forget what the question was:
"...should you have to prove the reason for your opinion..."
1 ) The answer in my opinion is "no". Something plausible is by definition; something worthy of approval or acceptance. Thus, a plausible answer should suffice.
2 ) However, this question can only be answered by whom you've given a plausible or validated opinion to. The recipient of your response will decide if your answer needs corroboration or not.
3 ) An opinion is really just another point of view and needs not of further approval -other than yours.
2006-11-10 13:34:04 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
A validated opinion just becomes a fact.
'Plausible' you can treat as "Probable" -- a high degree of possibility.
Valid, in the logical sense, refers to the form of an argument, whereby IF the premises are true, the conclusion cannot be false.
In a colloquial sense, 'validated' means roughly 'justified'. The two notions are at odds, the first is logico-deductive, the second is epistemic. There are propositions that are valid in themselves, tautologies such as (A &~B) â (A v (Q â B)), or AâA, but justified propositions such as A â B are not true simply on the analysis of the logical structure.
You can certainly use probable propositions in an argument. The inductive calculus will just differ-- you won't be able to ascertain necessary truth, but grades of possibility.
We mostly assume propositions are 100% true and see what happens when juxtaposed to other propositions that we take for granted. If the conclusions generated are instrumental, it might serve us to believe even a counter-intuitive (improbable) assertion.
2006-11-10 19:38:01 · answer #2 · answered by -.- 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A plausible premise is an assumption. Whatever is determined by the ensuing line of reasoning is only as valid as the assumptions.
Einstein make three assumptions in his Special Theory of Relativity.
2006-11-10 19:03:36 · answer #3 · answered by Sophist 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can put forth any premise whether you provide validation or not. That is free speech. The hearer of information would do well to seek substantiation of any thought.
2006-11-10 19:17:00 · answer #4 · answered by G-Man 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is never absolute validation. A plausible hypothesis is really the basis even for what seems validated.
2006-11-10 19:05:48 · answer #5 · answered by the Boss 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends on how robust you want your argument to be. If you want to be believed by people with simple minds, you can use a plausable premise. If you want people with analytical minds to accept your argument or conclusion, you need to prove that all steps along the way are valid.
2006-11-10 19:09:53 · answer #6 · answered by Ralfcoder 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You should read Carl Sagan's "The Demon-Haunted World" particularly the chapter about the dragon in his garage. He also has a "Baloney Detection System" that may give some insight.
2006-11-13 22:35:12 · answer #7 · answered by Chaine de lumière 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Something can be "proven" to you (others) only when you (they) believe it already.
Otherwise, there will always be enough reasonable doubt in your (their) mind for you (them) to deny it.
2006-11-10 19:13:14 · answer #8 · answered by grand_admiral_jack_sparrow 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋