Apparently Aristotle had some reasoned opinions about gravity. At the least you'd be ridiculously wrong in good company. Is that your goal?

Mud-slinging. The last resource of low-life on the Internet when their hate has no other outlet.

What is your point, other than expressing extreme hatred and ill will toward me? If that's your only point, then you are venting, not arguing. This is not the place for venting and hatred. You're mistaking this place for social media.

If you are arguing, then you are expressing an opinion, with a reasoned opinion that all reasoned opinions are ridiculously wrong. Mine, Aristotle's, everybody's, yours. That's your well-reasoned opinion. And your well-reasoned opinion is ridiculously wrong. About well-reasoned opinions.

You just mimicked a paradox, not at all an original one. In a slightly different form of the original one.

Most folks are not evidence/proof averse. Evidence and proof have there place. If you just want to opine safe from challenges for evidence and proof, I am sure there are sites where you can so that. Doesn't seem to me this site goes that way.

I agree that this site is evidence/proof positive. There is nothing wrong with that. What I am against is when reason alone is sufficient to show a point, and which relies on common knowledge for evidence, yet people shout at me, "name your source". As if independent, natural thought was a plague to avoid, that's the impression I get from many members of this site.

And when one presents a reasonably put-together case of conceptually manipulating common-sense evidence to show a point, then they charge that one did not put together an argument because one did not name one's source.

But there are times when one can figure things out on one's own, and no reading or references to arguments is needed. Not understanding an argument like that baffles me. It is clear, simple, and transparent... why do people with frothing mouths demand me to show historical evidence of the same thought process? That is what I am against. I am against ignoring common sense arguments.

So since the general readership can't immediately separate in my texts what is an opinion of mine, and what is a stated, supported fact, I shall now promise to state "this is an opinion of mine" or something similar when I state such. — god must be atheist

That would certainly help, I think. Thank you. When you fail to do this, you imply that what you write is objective, indisputable fact that everyone automatically knows to be so. What you determine to be ‘common sense’ arguments are still based on your own subjective experiences - which you cannot assume to be commonly agreed upon, unfortunately. There is no such thing as ‘common sense’.

When you write in reference to other authors, unless you offer a direct quote, you are interpreting what they say based on your subjective opinions about what their words mean to you.

I noticed that often when I appeal to common sense, people will want some background reference, or statistical or other evidence to support an opinion. — god must be atheist

Some rhetoric teachers recommend NOT appealing to common sense. For one, common sense is perhaps a good deal less common than we hope, and for two, it either doesn't mean anything in particular, or it means nothing. I don't care if you use the phrase "common sense" but it does have rhetorical deficiencies.

If you say something that somebody else doesn't particularly like the sound of, an easy negative response is to ask for evidence, or a reference. In many cases, we can cite actual evidence and give references for our statements, but it's a lot of trouble to track it all down. Everyone knows this.

If I say, "Gay is good." I have stated a personal opinion with which others can only respond to by stating their own opinions. So you can say "Yes, gay is good" or "Gay is not good." Either way, it's merely your opinion, and my opinion is merely mine.

If I stated that "The human species will be wiped out by 2200 because of global warming." I am making a statement which may be factually based, may be factually erroneous, may be misinformation, or may be wishful thinking. In this case, people can, should, and ought to ask for the evidence behind my statement.

I can't say, "Oh, it's just my opinion." I need to cite scientific reports that suggest that global warming from greenhouse gases will make life untenable by 2200, or that disease and starvation will wipe us out (because of global warming), or something else.

As it happens, I don't believe that we will be wiped out by 2200. I would expect to see population levels dropping steadily by that time, heading toward a new, lower, equilibrium level. Disease and starvation, massive flooding, hot weather, high humidity, bad storms, etc. will probably be the new normal. I believe there is some evidence that if trends continue, the environment which we are accustomed to will gradually disappear and be replaced by the one I just described.

The trick is to not make really bold claims without providing information (or a source, at least) to back it up. If you make a statement of shocking opinion, then you should explain why you hold that opinion.

People may (will, pretty much) still give you negative feedback. There's nothing anyone can do to prevent that. It goes with the territory.

Thanks for your input. Valuable insights.

Negative input: it bothers me as much as it does the next person, but per se it does not bother me all that much as a persistent and vehement demand for naming my source when source was not needed, just some insight into human psyche.

I would be equally upset if someone demanded me to explain something that is statistically sound, but causally can't be shown.

How would one go about telling these people that they are asking for something that is not available or not necessary? the argument spake for itself, it had no lose ends. Why the ongoing badgering, then? How does one stop such badgering, which included egging-on insults, like "you haven't shown anything", "your reasoning is faulty", etc, when these are empty accusations without merit? One has to defend one's thesis, but why does one need to defend against false criticism?

When you write in reference to other authors, unless you offer a direct quote, you are interpreting what they say based on your subjective opinions about what their words mean to you. — Possibility

Thanks, Possibility. This is what I had always thought, until a demand came to two separate posts of mine, to name where the author stated what was my opinion. So if you and I agree on this, many others are not on the same page; therefore I take your encouragement to say that the text of a post of mine was written as my own opinion.

Thanks for your insightful input.

What you determine to be ‘common sense’ arguments are still based on your own subjective experiences - which you cannot assume to be commonly agreed upon, unfortunately. There is no such thing as ‘common sense’. — Possibility

I would say there is, but this is not a thread to discuss that notion in detail. If you like, I can open a thread with the post "is common sense some insight or thought or opinion commonly accepted?"

Thanks, Possibility. This is what I had always thought, until a demand came to two separate posts of mine, to name where the author stated what was my opinion. So if you and I agree on this, many others are not on the same page; therefore I take your encouragement to say that the text of a post of mine was written as my own opinion. — god must be atheist

Don’t get too confident yet.

See, the problem is how you state it. I’m not sure which comments you’re referring to. If you appear to be paraphrasing the author or putting words in his/her mouth (‘the author said X’), then you’re implying that you know exactly what he meant to say, at which point anyone who plans to dispute your interpretation as the ‘true’ intention of the author will undoubtedly ask for a referenced, direct quote from the author, so they can show you why your interpretation is not, or at least not necessarily, the ‘true’ or even an accurate interpretation. They’re entitled to do that, and you, if you intend to stand by your claim, will need to justify your interpretation over theirs.

In the end, the only ‘true’ intention of the author comes from the direct quote itself.

I would say there is, but this is not a thread to discuss that notion in detail. If you like, I can open a thread with the post "is common sense some insight or thought or opinion commonly accepted?" — god must be atheist

Makes no real difference whether I like it or not. But I will say: common to whom?

Just to muddy the waters even further....doesn't hermeneutics describe in some detail why ongoing interpretations actually contribute to the meaning of texts? I do think reasoned opinions should flow quite naturally from source texts though, and be demonstrable on demand.

How would one go about telling these people that they are asking for something that is not available or not necessary? — god must be atheist

I make statements all the time based on years of reading; I often do not know exactly where something came from. The accumulation of ideas you will pick up from reading become your ideas. I didn't invent the theory of evolution -- I picked that up from lectures, reading, discussions. Evolutionary theory is now part of my thinking.

If you don't have specific sources for a statement (and you might not--this isn't a graduate seminar, after all) then just say so, or ignore the request.

Why the ongoing badgering, then? How does one stop such badgering, which included egging-on insults, like "you haven't shown anything", "your reasoning is faulty", etc, when these are empty accusations without merit? — god must be atheist

Some people are badgers, and that's just what they do. I've seen this kind of repeated response quite a few times over the years in various threads--"you didn't explain anything", "you still haven't answered my question", "you haven't shown anything", etc. The badgers quite often have no more insight into the issue at hand than they accuse their targets of having.

Sometimes you just have to move on, and ignore some people.

but why does one need to defend against false criticism? — god must be atheist

If someone has made a serious criticism, like "You have completely misunderstood Hegel", and you believe you have not misunderstood Hegel or Kant or Socrates or Joe Blow, it is worth your time to answer -- if possible. Like, ask the nabob of negativity, "How have I misunderstood Hegel? You've made a serious claim -- prove it." But again, this isn't a graduate seminar. Sometimes it's a fair response to ignore people.

Why is it a fair response in this forum to ignore people sometimes? Well, batting the ping pong ball of a disagreement back and forth too many times makes for tiresome reading, and it wastes time. It might look like productive engagement (it might even be productive, under some circumstances) but often it is just tedious mental ping pong. "No you didn't", Yes, I did", ad nauseam.

All purpose rule of thumb: A lot of people are just annoying.

I do think reasoned opinions should flow quite naturally from source texts though, and be demonstrable on demand. — Pantagruel

Where did you steal this idea from, exactly? Sources, please. :naughty:

I thought that was one of yours?!

I noticed that often when I appeal to common sense, people will want some background reference, or statistical or other evidence to support an opinion. — god must be atheist

There is a difference between an opinion and an informed opinion. Common sense is not sufficient when what you are offering an opinion about is something that involves matters of fact. If your opinion is an informed opinion then you need to say what it is that informs that opinion. An example, let's say you are arguing about vaccines. Common sense is that we should not inject harmful substances into the body, but that does not tell us whether the substances in vaccines are harmful or whether the benefits outweigh the risks.

I also noticed that when I make an opinion, and state it as a claim, on the works of some classic philosopher, then people will ask me "where did he state that / can you quote an exact page number and book where he said that, so I can look it up, etc. — god must be atheist

There are several reasons why one should cite the source. So that others can read what the author actually said. To determine whether what you said accurately represented the author's words. To see the context, which is important to understanding the meaning of what is said.

Case in point I talked about Wittgenstein on July 20 and 21, 2019 — god must be atheist

Case in point, without providing information on where you said this we cannot read what was said or evaluate it without access to content and context.

At this point I don't know if this demanding nature of other users of the forum is genuine, and they really need me to back up my opinion with quotes, statistics and other hard evidence, or else they are using this tool as a tactic to discredit my opinions. — god must be atheist

I cannot speak for everyone but there are some of us here who do not think that is is being demanding but rather is just standard practice in philosophical discussion that makes reference to philosophers or deals with matters of fact.

... I'll ask them to please forego the demand for evidence, and accept my argument on the strength of my reasoning. — god must be atheist

The strength of your reasoning is directly tied to the evidence on which it is based. Or, if your claim is that in any particular case or in all cases there is no need for evidence then you must be able to explain why evidence is not needed.

If your position is that it is just your opinion then why should anyone take it seriously? Is it your opinion that a philosophy forum exists simply to allow you to inform us of your opinions?

[Added]: Out of curiosity I tracked down the posts where you talked about Wittgenstein. You presented your opinion:

In my opinion Witty lacked the insight of accepting the status quo of language.

but qualifying it by saying it is your opinion does not mean that it is correct. It is completely at odds with what Wittgenstein was showing in the Investigations. There is a reading group in the forum on Wittgenstein's PI. Meaning as use it discussed at length and citations are given. He repeatedly points to the "status quo of language" as fundamental to most of our language games. If you opinion is at odds with what is said in the text then it is up to you to show that your opinion should be taken seriously by appeal preferably to the text or to the secondary literature. Note that this is how the reading group functions. It has nothing to do with a tactic to discredit your opinions.

I've never said anything that sensible.

LOL! I'm pretty sure Heidegger talks about a 'community of rational beings' who participate in the project of textual creation of meaning 'outside of time.' I recall the image quite clearly, it might take a fair while to excavate the underlying references though....I think it was one of my earlier readings of Being and Time.

I noticed that often when I appeal to common sense, people will want some background reference, or statistical or other evidence to support an opinion. — god must be atheist

I have to assert here that these demands by other users strike me as odd. If I make an opinion, why do I need to cite statistical evidence, or by a quotation from a by me critiqued classic thinker, once I show my opinion reasonable by either logic, or by applying common sense. These demands are baffling for me, and perhaps the reason they come is the way I present my stances: maybe my opinions come across as stated facts. — god must be atheist

Some, many, most? discussions on the forum are built from poorly presented facts, undefined or poorly defined terms, and unsubstantiated claims. I don't mean this as a reference to you. Expecting people to clearly state their positions and the basis for them is not unreasonable. It's at the heart of what philosophy is. As for common sense - it's just one of those phrases like "a priori" or "self-evident" that are most accurately translated as "seems to me."

Some people are badgers, and that's just what they do. I've seen this kind of repeated response quite a few times over the years in various threads--"you didn't explain anything", "you still haven't answered my question", "you haven't shown anything", etc. The badgers quite often have no more insight into the issue at hand than they accuse their targets of having.

Sometimes you just have to move on, and ignore some people. — Bitter Crank

Thanks, this makes sense, and I should have known. But I did not.

Some, many, most? discussions on the forum are built from poorly presented facts, undefined or poorly defined terms, and unsubstantiated claims. I don't mean this as a reference to you. Expecting people to clearly state their positions and the basis for them is not unreasonable. It's at the heart of what philosophy is. As for common sense - it's just one of those phrases like "a priori" or "self-evident" that are most accurately translated as "seems to me." — T Clark

This is also very reasonable. Thanks, T Clark.

Common sense is that we should not inject harmful substances into the body, but that does not tell us whether the substances in vaccines are harmful or whether the benefits outweigh the risks. — Fooloso4

I think common sense does see that vaccines help stave off illness. It may not have been common sense opinion in the nineteenth century, but it was in the second half of the twentieth century. The new trend, the Vaxxers, is too weak to call their opinion common sense.

Do you need backup statistical evidence for this? Then I ask you to please state backup statistical evidence for your opinion too.

So here we go, two different people evaluating common sense in opposing ways. This means that nobody has monopoly on common sense. Therefore I may need indeed to to cite supporting material that show that in the second half of the twentieth century common sense was that vaccines worked and they did a good job.

I concede this point.

The strength of your reasoning is directly tied to the evidence on which it is based. Or, if your claim is that in any particular case or in all cases there is no need for evidence then you must be able to explain why evidence is not needed. — Fooloso4

This is reasonable. Except sometimes people either don't understand the explanation, or else their point of view is so different that they don't WANT to accept the explanation.

Therefore your advice, that I must be able to explain why evidence is not necessary is well-meant and in theory works, but not in practice.

I cannot speak for everyone but there are some of us here who do not think that is is being demanding but rather is just standard practice in philosophical discussion that makes reference to philosophers or deals with matters of fact. — Fooloso4

Should I treat this as a common sense appeal, an opinion, or something that needs to be backed up by evidence?

Your assertion is an opinion on an opinion. It appeals to the common sense of a subgroup of the community. It references a practice which is happening in philosophical discussions and not happening in philosophical discussions, given that it is not easy to delineate what separates a philosophical discussion from a discussion which is not philosophical, other than what is decided by opinion.

You see, there are problems with this advice. Again, the jist of it makes sense, and I get it, but you are correcting me to iron out mistakes, which mistakes you are committing yourself.

With this I DO NOT mean to emphasize that we are making mistakes; instead, I wish to show that we are not making mistakes, neither you nor I. Instead, the interpretive evaluation of the claims can turn mistake-free service of an argument or opinion into a mistaken argument or opinion.

And when that happens, that is, the interpretive evaluation renders my otherwise philosophically speaking mistake-free opinion, then I get angry. I am sorry, it is an emotional reaction I can't control. The demand to correct something which is correct in its original form, is something I can't abide with emotionally. It demands of me to do busy-work for nothing.

This interpretive evaluation can take many forms, the two most common ones are employing fallacious arguments by my opponents, and simple nay-saying.

In my opinion Witty [...] was a genius who stopped his thinking at a premature insight, whereas he ought to have proceeded further in his thinking.

"A conclusion is a place where you stop when you got tired of thinking." -- traditional, origin unknown. — god must be atheist

Well! With these kinds of views, I'm surprised you dare to show your face here in church.

I also noticed that when I make an opinion, and state it as a claim, on the works of some classic philosopher, then people will ask me "where did he state that / can you quote an exact page number and book where he said that, so I can look it up, etc. — god must be atheist

What is the alternative? The entire project of reading stuff and talking about it with other people is either working out what was actually said or disagreeing with the words after having done the first part.
That is it.
If you have an alternative project, then present it.

I think the subject of the thread says it all. A reasoned opinion is exactly that, an opinion, for which one has reasons. The opinion should be able to stand on its own merit, if it is well-formulated. I think it is reasonable to say that most of our beliefs are formed from a complex of origins. You don't need to supply proof for your opinions. An opinion is its own advocate.