On Opinions

[Roark]

When it comes to opinions, one should not hem and haw at expressing them. One does not need to remind others "this is just my opinion." Such a statement is implied, unless noted otherwise. When expressing your beliefs, do not feel that you must walk on eggshells. Merely state your piece and, importantly, why you believe that.

Conversation arises from mutual respect. If you do not respect your own opinion enough to state without qualifiers, don't expect anyone to take it seriously either. If you do not hold your beliefs in enough esteem to back them up, perhaps you should question why you hold them.

Be not afraid to voice the unpopular opinion. Do not shy from controversy. These things make for lively and interesting disucussions. Over amounts of respect and "repspecting the other person's view" lead to boredom. If you disagree with someone, then bleeding disagree! But, please do so rationally.

Opinions *can* be wrong! If your opinion is that cold-blooded slaughter of innocent bystanders is a fun past time, you are indeed a sociopath. If you If you think that the world is better off run by (insert group here), be prepared to be shown wrong as history unfolds before you. Doctors - offerers of professional opinions about ailments - are oft shown wrong in their assesments. In subjective and ethical matters, wrong opinions are largely a matter of differing framework.

Conversation necessitates stepping on some toes. This doesn't mean "be an *******;" toe-step tact, grace, and wit. Be prepared to back up your statements. No one likes to hear "well, that's just what I believe and you can't argue that!"

Opinions are powerful things. A person's thoughts, ideas, and beliefs become comingled with their very identity. Interesting discussion often assaults a person's core beliefs about the world. Recognize that this is not an attack on your personage, but rather on your thoughts. Even fundamental disagreements become useful, since they ellucidate a person's fundamental views. That rock bottom may become an irreconcilable difference of opinion, but all opinions built on that are subject to rational thought, same as anything else.

So, please. Don't be afraid to express an opinion. Don't be afraid to call someone when you don't agree. No one hates you when they argue some point. We just think your opinion is wrong, and know why. Stick to your guns, and tell us why it's right.

It's OK. Really.

[soundchazer]

Just to add to Roark's comment, until someone can prove to you that your opinion is wrong (either with facts or just basic persuation), defend it to the bitter end! You are the owner of the truth, until someone proves otherwise.

If that sounds cocky, it might as well be that way... it is after all your personal beliefs, values and vision. You should defend them!

A personal note on the subject: although at times I push hard and take no prisoners when expressing myself, I do not do so out of spite nor malice. I have no intention to ridicule or belittle the poster. I will however, question, prod and analyze the ideas. If I don't agree with them (the ideas), don't expect me to roll over and die, or to be your yes person. If defending my ideas make me sound stand offish, condescending, elitist or pompous, so be it.

[Kain]

When it comes to opions...

It's about time we discussed those delectable opiate-laced onions. In my opinion, of course.

[Roark]

It's about time we discussed those delectable opiate-laced onions. In my opinion, of course.
Spelling error from posting at work corrected.

[Mouse]

This should be a sticky.

Edit: Along with a thread about repeatedly apologizing for your opinion.

[Milkymagic]

The truth is definitely as one believes and defines it. So I guess my opinion ties in with both of yours in that there are absolute facts, and even truths that can be changed with enough fact (within the given definition of the term "fact"). There's also truths that have a popular support to sustain them, and ones supported by a smaller group or individual.

Some Examples:

Concrete Truth (Encyclopedia-worthy): Anime was originated from Japan (should I choose to disagree? lol!)

Simple Truth (Public-worthy): Tekken is the worst anime ever (I would probably say Roots Search did me in worst, though I don't feel like explaining that yet)

Complex Truth (Individual-worthy): Hyper Police is cool (I've had the friends I live with slam me for this one, and again I'd rather explain that in a different thread, since this one's about opinions in general).

That's just the way I see it, and I'll try to state my opinions on other matters with the best support I can give them, though it depends on my knowledge at the moment (if it's on a series I haven't viewed in years or whatnot).

Cool to see a thread on this, you should make it a sticky for those who feel intimidated by expressing themselves in larger groups.

[Ieyasu]

But that's just your opinion.

[PsychoSaiya-jin]

I am currently fascinated by the concepts surrounding common conceptions, the majority, and the status quo.
I like how we have the truth based on personal feelings, Truthiness; opinions, which can differ from the official and verfied but still hold an element of truth in a person's heart.
Then, of course, we also have the democratic truth. We have Wikiality.

It always seems to be that opinions derived from feelings almost always provoke equally opinionated feelings in others.

[Javer]

I am currently fascinated by the concepts surrounding common conceptions, the majority, and the status quo.
I like how we have the truth based on personal feelings, Truthiness; opinions, which can differ from the official and verfied but still hold an element of truth in a person's heart.
Then, of course, we also have the democratic truth. We have Wikiality.

Guess what show you need a break from? : )

[7Raven7]

The truth is definitely as one believes and defines it. So I guess my opinion ties in with both of yours in that there are absolute facts, and even truths that can be changed with enough fact (within the given definition of the term "fact"). There's also truths that have a popular support to sustain them, and ones supported by a smaller group or individual.

Some Examples:

Concrete Truth (Encyclopedia-worthy): Anime was originated from Japan (should I choose to disagree? lol!)

Simple Truth (Public-worthy): Tekken is the worst anime ever (I would probably say Roots Search did me in worst, though I don't feel like explaining that yet)

Complex Truth (Individual-worthy): Hyper Police is cool (I've had the friends I live with slam me for this one, and again I'd rather explain that in a different thread, since this one's about opinions in general).

That's just the way I see it, and I'll try to state my opinions on other matters with the best support I can give them, though it depends on my knowledge at the moment (if it's on a series I haven't viewed in years or whatnot).

Cool to see a thread on this, you should make it a sticky for those who feel intimidated by expressing themselves in larger groups.

Philosophy, eh? Shouldn't we be in a cave with a fire behind us discussing this? And you left out Absolute True, a concept for which many a Gen-Xer no longer believes in.

But mainly this is about respect me thinks, and the fact that even if you don't agree with someoones opinion you can still respect them/it. Hell, I agree with plenty of people I don't respect! Also, just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean anything, and most of the time it is probably better not to treat anything you read in a forum too seriously.

[Blue Audio]

Tact is for those who aren' witty enough to be sarcastic.

Just my opinion.

[Roark]

Tact is for those who aren' witty enough to be sarcastic.

Just my opinion.
Perfect case example.

[soundchazer]

Tact is for those who aren' witty enough to be sarcastic.

I thought tact was supposed to be used around pretty women... being the most useful of the 5 senses in that situation, that is.

[Blue Audio]

Just giving a poor example. It's what I do.

[7Raven7]

I thought tact was supposed to be used around pretty women...

No, that's where we employ another asset of communication... it's called lying our ass off.

[Milkymagic]

Yeah, I tend to abandon Absolute Truth, even though I know it exists. This is only because I'm way too open-minded for my own good, and probably need some barriers to restrain my spontaneous thinking patterns. Basically, this thread is about opinions, so there's no need to discuss the facts as we know them, even though I do appreciate the gesture Raven. I definitely need to remember fact from opinion. In the end, we're all just wavelengths of different opinions, with some facts slapped in here and there for good measure.

My only ability that helps me meet women is my sense of humor, though sarcasm is my worst trait for meeting ladies. I never seem to nail the tone or delivery at an effective rate, so I back myself into a corner and try to utilize my impersonations of popular figures and a few jokes here and there. It's quite lame when I think about it, being I'm no James Bond. Agh!

[Arkaine Deao]

Some could even argue the existence of Absolute Truth. Somebody might say that "Gravity exists" is an absolute truth, but maybe gravity only exists because enough people believe it does. Anyway, there is probably no way to test this hypothesis, because I can't get enough people to stop believing in the existence of gravity for a long enough time. So, since there is no way to test the possible non-existence of gravity, its existence is an Absolute Truth.

[C0MPL3X]

No, just because we can't test for possible flaws in our present model of gravity, that doesn't make it an absolute truth. There might be ways, we just don't know for now.

[Roark]

I'm not sure what everyone's talking about with the phrase "Absolute truth." This phrase really doesn't have much meaning. I'd like if someone would please explain what they mean by this.

Truths generally fall into two categories, in philosophy terms anyhow:

Necessary truths are truths that hold for all possible worlds. These include things like basic mathmetical operations, geometry, and other logcial operations. It may also include things like "Cogito Ergo Sum" (I think, therefore, I am). Essentially, anything that is true without reference to our world is necessarily true.

Contingent Truths are truths about our world. Gravity in its current form is contingent. Colours, sounds, shapes, etc. are all truths about our world. This encompasses most of scient, btw.

Also, remember that a statement's truth value is a separate issue from how we know that truth value. The possibility that "gravity exists" is false and testing that edges into the realm of knowledge claims, viz. "we know that gravity does not exist." It's a bad example anyhow, since gravitation is a scientific model of observed phenomena, not a truth-holding proposition. Scientific models only hold "true" for how well they explain observable events. (This ignores a rather large debate about scientific realism, in that some hold that we really are discovering the laws of the universe and not just describing things. This means that when we talk in equations, we can safely say "THIS IS HOW THINGS WORK! Really!" The end goal is a set of equations that accurately describe all observable phenomena in our universe. This is in opposition to the view that science is ascriptive, meaning that we are fitting rules onto phenomena and dealing with matters, limited by human understanding. It also ignores Godel's completeness theorem, which states that any sufficiently powerful formal system will always have at least one unprovable theorem. Godel's theorem applies to math, but physics being based on math may fall victim.)

[7Raven7]

For shame! Forgetting your Philosophy 101 already? Absolute truth was a huge topic, especially with Socrates.

In this thread, the term "facts" and even "gravity" were mentioned as absolutes. Speaking from a purely philosophical standpoint, there is no such thing as facts and what we call gravity is merely our body's observation that when we jump, something pulls us back down. It is backed by our physics concept that two bodies of any mass pull at each other but even those so called rules get twisted in examples like Black Holes and exploding suns and are non-existent within a vacuum. It is still an observation with the "true" concept of gravity, like a goddess, something we will never experience in our physical form.

In the same way, one might count the number of crimes within a certain definable geographic area over the course of a year and say that is a fact. But the terms "year" and the geographic area and especially the term "crime "are all ones we define, and then count. That's like saying that instead of October, let's call this month "Supper-time" and instead of professors lets call them lima beans. If enough society members agreed to these word-definitions it would be a fact that, during this Supper-Time, AA has seven active lima beans. Think that's stretching it a bit? Think of the term n00b and what it means, is it something that had meaning before we gave it that name and does it derive on a concept prior to us establishing its criteria?

But the concept of a teacher or a professor or someone who sucks at a particular aspect of internet interaction would be what we were referring to and the Ancient Greeks believed that concept was stronger then the actual representation of a person trying to fill a role or the words we use to describe them. A more popular example came up in art as a student was painting a tree. Though the picture represented the tree, it was not the actual tree, living and growing etc. The thought drifted further to where they wondered "well, there are a lot of different types of trees , or what we would call trees and for some reason we group them together and separate them from the birds, etc" and from there they derived that there was an ultimate concept of a tree, again, in which the only observable form was what we can see and touch. This conceptual tree serves as the inspiration for the representation of a tree, namely that which you call a tree in your yard or in a forest.

Either way, the theory is that there is a source beyond what we can see, touch, hear, feel, taste and name. And that source is something we can never completely understand within our limited bodies and environment. That, in a nutshell, is "absolute truth."

[Roark]

I believe what you're thinking of are the Platonic Forms or Ideals, whereby things in nature/the real world (trees) are but mirrors or crude representations of some unchanging, extraperceptual/conceptual but totally existant Tree. This Tree serves as the ultimate model for all other, imperfect trees that we see.

This is different from (but related to) the concept of truth, which is an assesment tied to propositions. This notion was broached by Aristotle in his Logic, for what it's worth.

Later on in Phil. 101, you see the progression from Plato's forms to more modern metaphysics, where the a priori/a posteriori distinction is much more prounounced (then confounded by Kant again). I'd hazard that what Plato (writing through a character named Socrates) was on about was more epistemic in nature than metaphysic. Namely, that there's a divide between our perceptual awareness and the "thing in and of itself." A system of metaphysics can be derived from the forms, and it bears a bit of a resemblance to later expressions of Idealist thought.

[soundchazer]

Uhm... if I may...

are we still talking about Opinions?

[Arkaine Deao]

Uhm... if I may...

are we still talking about Opinions?

I was under the impression that this thread was just to discuss opinions on various things, not as a thread for discussing Opinions and the concept of them.
If I am wrong, I will look for a different thread to debate in.

[Mana]

No, the thread really was about discussing the natures of opinions and their setting on the forums. I think the first post made that rather clear.

[Emeraldas]

Uhm... if I may...

are we still talking about Opinions?

MINI-MOD!

I'm telling!

[soundchazer]

MINI-MOD!

I'm telling!

Have we ever told you that Professors have mod capabilities? If not, now you know. ;)

[Mana]

Yeah, if it weren't for that, I probably wouldn't have been willing to become a professor. EVen though according to the forums, I'm still in the global mod group *evil cackles*

[Milkymagic]

Truth and Ideals, interesting. Then it is Ideals we hold, but it is the Truth that evades some of us? I definitely understand Truth from Ideal, but I admit there is only certain Truths to anime itself, making certain Ideals flexible in themselves. An expression of an Opinion requires some Ideal, but whether there's any Truth depends on the response.

Or Roark can just backhand me and tell it like it is...

[Emeraldas]

Have we ever told you that Professors have mod capabilities?

A travesty everyone is working very hard to change.

[soundchazer]

A travesty everyone is working very hard to change.

Everyone being you and what army?

And for the record, I was not moding, I was asking a rethorical question.

[Emeraldas]

Everyone being you and what army?

And for the record, I was not moding, I was asking a rethorical question.

*argueargueargueargue*

[Erigion]

Opinions are like buttholes. Everyone has one and they all stink.

[Emeraldas]

Opinions are like buttholes. Everyone has one and they all stink.

Here here :chher:

[Tyrdium]

Opinions are like buttholes. Everyone has one and they all stink.Would that make truth an enema?

[Dark Lord]

Ookay... But what's an enema? I've heard the word maybe a couple of times before but I forgot to ask what it meant...

[Javer]

*argueargueargueargue*

My nominee for Post of the Year.

Dark Lord, try Wikipedia'ing it:

"An enema (plural enemata or enemas) is the procedure of introducing liquids into the rectum and colon via the anus."

Glad you asked?

[Dark Lord]

Ewwwww... Oh well... All this talk on philosophy and figures of speech...
Oookay, back to topic... As for opinions, everyone has one to share... Not everyone may agree with it, but opinions must be defended until it is disproven... That's life... It's not perfect, that's why it stinks...

[soundchazer]

My nominee for Post of the Year.



Ain't that the truth. She loves to pick up fights.

[Emeraldas]

Ain't that the truth. She loves to pick up fights.

Now that's MY vote for Post of the Year. Look who's f*cking talking.


Seriously, SC, STFU.

[Milkymagic]

Now that's MY vote for Post of the Year. Look who's f*cking talking.


Seriously, SC, STFU.

Damn!

I'm certain saying more than that would place me right in the middle of the fight, but I'll risk it.

Please stop the fighting, that sort of energy can definitely be put towards awesome things, like building a computer or ending world hunger. Actually, forget the second one, that's not possible. Those starving countries would need their own way to make money to keep on living without our intervention, so I guess it can't really be stopped for now...wait!

What am I doing!?

[PsychoSaiya-jin]

Ain't that the truth. She loves to pick up fights.
*picks fight*
LOL

Uhm... if I may...

are we still talking about Opinions?
It seems that the reach for a higher-ground that overrides opinion is often used in the internet.
But even if you were to hold "Truth" would it invalidate somebody's opinion?
Or maybe what we are really looking for is verification. If there is incorrectness in a given statement, can that be used to invalidate a given opinion?

Opinions are like forces of nature. Similarly-natured ones compliment and reinforce eachother and opposing opinions often react with equal or greater force.

[Milkymagic]

LOL


It seems that the reach for a higher-ground that overrides opinion is often used in the internet.
But even if you were to hold "Truth" would it invalidate somebody's opinion?
Or maybe what we are really looking for is verification. If there is incorrectness in a given statement, can that be used to invalidate a given opinion?

Opinions are like forces of nature. Similarly-natured ones compliment and reinforce eachother and opposing opinions often react with equal or greater force.

I'll be completely honest, I do fear the day when I meet someone who convinces me Angel's Egg or Gunbuster sucks, since that day would be a life changing one. I'm not worried about The Wings of Honneamise being severely attacked by anyone, so that will be safe at the top of my anime praises.

Another amusing fact: In the last top 10 I ever composed before I updated this year, Hyper Police was considered my favorite all-time anime. A friend of mine thought it was blasphemy, and told it to me like this...

Friend: "So you think Hyper Police is better than Golden Boy?!"
Milky: "Yep."
Friend: "So you think Hyper Police is better than Patlabor?!"
Milky: "....pretty much."
Friend: "So you can say that The Wings of Honneamise and Neon Genesis Evangelion are far outclassed by Hyper Police!?
Milky: "Gosh, when you put it like that..."

It's no longer in my top 10, but I can honestly say it's an easy Honorable Mention, given how much I still love the series. So in a way, I can understand opinions here and there. To like an anime is completely different from saying one is better than another. Yeah, Gunbuster is better than Hyper Police, but I can still like Hyper Police all the same. So in this mannerism, it is possible to be wrong in your opinions, but in the same token you should like what you want.

I've never felt intimidated to like an anime because somebody else did at AA, because usually those individuals merely express their opinions back, and you can match them up together. Some people might not even understand why someone could like Love Hina better than Kimagure Orange Road, and in such cases it's important to state why. Maybe you'll realize KOR is a better product, but Love Hina was either more your cup of tea, or you'll like KOR better and still leave room for liking Love Hina all the same. That's what can make opinions fun. Of course, some of them can still suck, and don't go looking in my direction when I say that...

[7Raven7]

I was following you up till the love Hina part. ..

When I think of opinion exchange, debate... whatever... I tend not to think which anime do I like vs. which ones do you like, or in what order. I have my top anime and my bottom anime and everything in the middle. And I have my moments of "yeah, I like this one better than that one," but very loosely. I also tend not to change my personal preference of them because what someone may or may not say.

On the other hand, I am always open to a different ways of looking at different aspects of a title and that is the part of an opinion conversation that really matters. If you say, for example, that Now and Then, Here and There is your favorite, so be it and you won't hear any argument from me. I won't call you a n00b or tell you that it sucks, etc. However, if you are trying to say that NGE had a great and comprehensive ending or that Akira's animation is dated, that's when we might not see eye to eye. On the other hand, perhaps a comment on the voice acting in Blue Seed or the animation in FLCL might cause me to think "hmm, I never though of it that way."

Or, there is a difference between personal preference, which you really can't argue about, and more tangible critiques. For example, I like Cowboy Bebop despite the fact that the story isn't pulled throughout, I don't try and convince people it isn't so. But if you want to hash it out with me on Bebop, that is an entirely different discussion all together.

[Milkymagic]

I was following you up till the love Hina part. ..

When I think of opinion exchange, debate... whatever... I tend not to think which anime do I like vs. which ones do you like, or in what order. I have my top anime and my bottom anime and everything in the middle. And I have my moments of "yeah, I like this one better than that one," but very loosely. I also tend not to change my personal preference of them because what someone may or may not say.

On the other hand, I am always open to a different ways of looking at different aspects of a title and that is the part of an opinion conversation that really matters. If you say, for example, that Now and Then, Here and There is your favorite, so be it and you won't hear any argument from me. I won't call you a n00b or tell you that it sucks, etc. However, if you are trying to say that NGE had a great and comprehensive ending or that Akira's animation is dated, that's when we might not see eye to eye. On the other hand, perhaps a comment on the voice acting in Blue Seed or the animation in FLCL might cause me to think "hmm, I never though of it that way."

Or, there is a difference between personal preference, which you really can't argue about, and more tangible critiques. For example, I like Cowboy Bebop despite the fact that the story isn't pulled throughout, I don't try and convince people it isn't so. But if you want to hash it out with me on Bebop, that is an entirely different discussion all together.

Yeah, that pretty much breaks it down. There's personal preference, and tangible critiques separating that. But I do believe there can be times when opinions change, hence my example, but never on a dramatic level. Granted, there are anime I no longer like that I used to in my humble beginnings. Sometimes we all need to see something better, and sometimes we know what we like, basically.

[Dark Lord]

It seems that the reach for a higher-ground that overrides opinion is often used in the internet.
But even if you were to hold "Truth" would it invalidate somebody's opinion?
Or maybe what we are really looking for is verification. If there is incorrectness in a given statement, can that be used to invalidate a given opinion?
That's why there's such thing as relativity... For example, a tree may look big to one person but may look small from the point of view of someone else... The perspectives of people differ depending on the cultures and practices they were accustomed to... As for "Truth", what truth is being referred to? Can it be counted as a truth if it varies from person to person? Can a truth vary from person to person yet still remain valid? *sigh*

[soundchazer]

Now that's MY vote for Post of the Year. Look who's f*cking talking.


Seriously, SC, STFU.

She also seems to have a wide arrange of vocabulary to use when she picks up fights.

Do me a favor Emeraldas. Instead of trying to correct my faults, why don't you start by improving on your own?

Everytime you and I get into an argument, I have been trying to correct a misplaced opinion of yours in good faith:

http://www.animeacademy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23389
http://www.animeacademy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23427

while you jump basically to criticize something I say, and end up asking me to "STFU" when you don't get me to agree with you, like here or there:

http://www.animeacademy.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23454

Just because you don't agree with my opinions doesn't give you the right to ask me to stop voicing them because they displease you. You have to understand the difference between being critical about an idea and attacking a person. I try to steer clear of the second becomes it doesn't lead to anything good.

[Mana]

SC, Emeraldas, take it to PM. No need for us all to witness your pickering; keep it up and AA will start thinking you 2 are married ;)

[soundchazer]

keep it up and AA will start thinking you 2 are married ;)

Nice way of framing it. You are a mean, mean lady. ;)

[Mana]

I'm a mod, I'm supposed to be mean :p

[Arkaine Deao]

SC, Emeraldas, take it to PM. No need for us all to witness your pickering; keep it up and AA will start thinking you 2 are married ;)

That is a cheap shot at married couples! Usually true enough, but still a cheap shot.
Which ties in with the current topic. If most married couples fight and bicker, can it be held as truth that "Married Couples Fight"? On the same note, if some married couples do not fight, can that position be held as truth? Or is it that there really is no truth other than the truth relative to the certain individual at the certain place and point of time they are in?
BRAINEURYSM!!!

[Roark]

That is a cheap shot at married couples! Usually true enough, but still a cheap shot.
Which ties in with the current topic. If most married couples fight and bicker, can it be held as truth that "Married Couples Fight"? On the same note, if some married couples do not fight, can that position be held as truth? Or is it that there really is no truth other than the truth relative to the certain individual at the certain place and point of time they are in?
BRAINEURYSM!!!
Oh, that's easy to express as a true statement:

Ex:(Mx&Fx)

where x is a couple, M is the property Married and F is the property Fights. The E at the front means there exists at least one instance of x. We can't use the A quantifier to indicate that all married couples fight, since there are definately counterexamples of married couples who don't fight.

[soundchazer]

* soundchazer shrugs

As a man who has been married for almost 9 years, I can tell you that you can avoid fights as long as the man has the last word:

"yes dear"

That solves any potential conflict like a charm.

And on a more serious note, married people usually find that type of comment humorous. Usually when you don't is when your marriage is indeed filled with inner turmoil.

[Milkymagic]

There's a wedding?

j/k!

I say we bring in some hugs people, how's that sound?

Because I didn't hear any wedding bells to go with those statements...

I heard "Mama Said Knock You Out" by LL Cool J.

Emeraldas is cool and so is Soundchazer. You're both cool, and I want to join your posse and sing backup on your respective albums, let's be friends!

Enjoy each other's traits and embrace world peace!

Note: Loved the marriage trivia by SC, I'm taking notes...lol!

[PsychoSaiya-jin]

Oh, that's easy to express as a true statement:

Ex:(Mx&Fx)

where x is a couple, M is the property Married and F is the property Fights. The E at the front means there exists at least one instance of x. We can't use the A quantifier to indicate that all married couples fight, since there are definately counterexamples of married couples who don't fight.Hahaha
This is starting to sound like formal methods. Can we analyse and break down statements with Hard Methods or would opinions be addressed better with Soft Systems Methodology?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_systems
[I do apologise, I just happen to be writing a paper on this subject as we speak :)]

[soundchazer]

[I do apologise, I just happen to be writing a paper on this subject as we speak :)]

No need... this is the best way to make a subject stick. Applying it to real life situations is always more fun than going with the theory alone.

[Roark]

Hard systems break down when applied to pure taste-related propositions (e.g., "Cake tastes good."). Hard systems work best in existing formal systems, such as math. As a philosopher, I generally work in hard systems as opposed to soft systems. From the Wiki article, people apply soft systems to things like "how should we perform disaster relief." That sounds like a policy issue, to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Philosophy tends to work at a more abstract, formal level. We would ask "What nature of government provides the best disaster relief." In pure analysis mode, philosophers also tend to be rigid in their methodology. We examine statements (generally) two ways: formally (as in, dealing with forms) and semantically. This is generally expressed as validity and soundness. Soundness tests may involve soft methods of analysis, but validity always requires hard methods. Using prepositional calculus is a tool to check the validity of someone's statements and arguments. The prepositions are expanded into plainspeak for soundness tests.

[Milkymagic]

Hard systems break down when applied to pure taste-related propositions (e.g., "Cake tastes good."). Hard systems work best in existing formal systems, such as math. As a philosopher, I generally work in hard systems as opposed to soft systems. From the Wiki article, people apply soft systems to things like "how should we perform disaster relief." That sounds like a policy issue, to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Philosophy tends to work at a more abstract, formal level. We would ask "What nature of government provides the best disaster relief." In pure analysis mode, philosophers also tend to be rigid in their methodology. We examine statements (generally) two ways: formally (as in, dealing with forms) and semantically. This is generally expressed as validity and soundness. Soundness tests may involve soft methods of analysis, but validity always requires hard methods. Using prepositional calculus is a tool to check the validity of someone's statements and arguments. The prepositions are expanded into plainspeak for soundness tests.

I am not worthy.

However, given my poor calculation skills, starting soft is the easiest way for me to do things. A very interesting lecture, and one that's even slapping me some necessary enlightenment. This information will definitely come in handy.

Mortal Kombat's Raiden says it best,"There is no knowledge that is not power"

[soundchazer]

Hard systems break down when applied to pure taste-related propositions (e.g., "Cake tastes good."). Hard systems work best in existing formal systems, such as math. As a philosopher, I generally work in hard systems as opposed to soft systems. From the Wiki article, people apply soft systems to things like "how should we perform disaster relief." That sounds like a policy issue, to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Philosophy tends to work at a more abstract, formal level. We would ask "What nature of government provides the best disaster relief." In pure analysis mode, philosophers also tend to be rigid in their methodology. We examine statements (generally) two ways: formally (as in, dealing with forms) and semantically. This is generally expressed as validity and soundness. Soundness tests may involve soft methods of analysis, but validity always requires hard methods. Using prepositional calculus is a tool to check the validity of someone's statements and arguments. The prepositions are expanded into plainspeak for soundness tests.


Would you say then, that in cases where you want a degree of certainty out of a situation were a soft system is usually applied (like your example of cake test), than you will require the help of a hard system? Would that mean then that statistics are the ultimate hybrid, where a hard system tries to create a level of validity towards issues that in many cases cannot be explained by it?

[Roark]

Note: I do not have a full understanding of Soft Systems Methods. From what I can gather, it's mostly a problem solving tool.

I'll give two answers: One related to the wiki link, one related to statistics and formal methods.

The wiki link would deal with a decision where the problem isn't fully understood and hard to classify. Referring back to cake, the problem might be "What should we serve as a company snack?" This involves what people consider a snack, what people like from a snack, whether or not people want a snack, etc. Since the problem of pleasing everyone is so broad, you'd probably want input from more than just the HR people (sorry). So, soft methods to problem solving would tell us to examine broad employee perspective instead of just what the HR person likes. Statistics would come in to determine broad likes and dislikes of your employees. Things like sweetness, nonmessiness, individual portions, serving a lot of people would indicate that cake is a good option.

Now, the hard method approach to cake liking (philosophically anyway) would start from some general principals and lead us to a conclusion. You could say stuff like "Sweet things taste better than bitter things," or "People like sugar," or some such. From there you would deduce that cake tastes good, offering a "proof" that cake is a good tasting thing. Of course, it takes on a premise somewhere that "Sugar tastes good," which will be the big sticking point.

I really would term statistics a "soft method" in general, since, although it involves quantitative analysis, it's only useful for large trends. You can draw inferences and inductions from stats, but you can't draw conclusions in the same way that deductive systems draw them (purely sound, baed on all-true, all-valid reasons).

[soundchazer]

Note: I do not have a full understanding of Soft Systems Methods. From what I can gather, it's mostly a problem solving tool.

I'll give two answers: One related to the wiki link, one related to statistics and formal methods.

The wiki link would deal with a decision where the problem isn't fully understood and hard to classify. Referring back to cake, the problem might be "What should we serve as a company snack?" This involves what people consider a snack, what people like from a snack, whether or not people want a snack, etc. Since the problem of pleasing everyone is so broad, you'd probably want input from more than just the HR people (sorry). So, soft methods to problem solving would tell us to examine broad employee perspective instead of just what the HR person likes. Statistics would come in to determine broad likes and dislikes of your employees. Things like sweetness, nonmessiness, individual portions, serving a lot of people would indicate that cake is a good option.

Now, the hard method approach to cake liking (philosophically anyway) would start from some general principals and lead us to a conclusion. You could say stuff like "Sweet things taste better than bitter things," or "People like sugar," or some such. From there you would deduce that cake tastes good, offering a "proof" that cake is a good tasting thing. Of course, it takes on a premise somewhere that "Sugar tastes good," which will be the big sticking point.

I really would term statistics a "soft method" in general, since, although it involves quantitative analysis, it's only useful for large trends. You can draw inferences and inductions from stats, but you can't draw conclusions in the same way that deductive systems draw them (purely sound, baed on all-true, all-valid reasons).

Lies! H.R. People are all-knowing!

Seriously though... it makes sense. I had always thought that the distinction of the hard model and the soft model was basically the level of accuracy and certainty of the answer. Your answer makes a lot of sense.

[Roark]

The accuracy level is a big distinction. The goals are also something to keep in mind. Hard method problems are thought to have a definitive answer. Soft method problems acknowledge that they search for the best possible answers, not necesarrily The Answer.

Again, philosophy is kind of odd here in that it seeks hard method answers to traditionally soft method things (aesthetics, government/morals, epistemology, metaphysics).

[Milkymagic]

The accuracy level is a big distinction. The goals are also something to keep in mind. Hard method problems are thought to have a definitive answer. Soft method problems acknowledge that they search for the best possible answers, not necesarrily The Answer.

Again, philosophy is kind of odd here in that it seeks hard method answers to traditionally soft method things (aesthetics, government/morals, epistemology, metaphysics).

That makes a great deal more sense than what I originally thought. Starting soft and ending hard would be my method I guess.

Wait, did that sound wrong to anyone?