When does speculation become something more?

[athon]

I've had a string of discussion recently with various people, both IRL and online, where the person has defended a viewpoint on a claim and then fallen back to stating 'it's just my opinion' or 'it's just speculation' or 'I was just wondering'.

Now, I can't fault a person for pondering. Indeed, I write science fiction for a hobby, and love to speculate the possibilities...to sit and mull over 'what if?'. But there seems to be a line crossed where mundane speculation becomes something more. And although it's not clear, it does get frustrating when somebody confidentally supports a claim with their view of the evidence and then states 'I'm just pondering the possibilities'.

So, I'm willing to change my views here and say I've been too harsh. Maybe they are just speculating. But at what point does something go from 'just speculating' to something more certain?

Athon

 

[Loss Leader]

When the matter under speculation becomes the premise for a new argument.

It's fine to argue the merits of some new theory or idea. But when that idea is used to support an argument to take some type of action, it must be taken as true. Since it is untested (let alone unproven), it is a fallacy to take it as true and whatever argument is being constructed with it would be logically false.

So, we could debate the concept of whether the Iraqi people want to have true representative democracy or not. We could not debate the concept of when to schedule true representative elections because it assumes we've already answered the first question.

I could think of a better example but I don't want to.

 

[desertyeti]

That's dead on Loss Leader. I might speculate on the value of my neighbor's house without ever setting foot into it, based on the value of mine, and the value of those around us and no harm is done. But, should I be asked to make an offer on his house, my speculation is worthless unless I have first-hand information to back it up, so I have an inspection, survey, and assessment carried out, as well as a title check. At that point my speculation has gone from simple opinion to informed opinion. Someone else might not go through all the data-aquisition, and go with their initial speculation, resulting in getting stuck with a money-pit. But the key is any speculation or opinion is only as good as the data behind it. In cases where people fall back on "It's just my opinion." or the ever-popular "Well it's possible!" there's usually a lack of good data. If it existed and the opinion was a logical extension of the information at hand, there'd probably not be a debate to begin with.

 

[Dr B]

When the matter under speculation becomes the premise for a new argument.

It's fine to argue the merits of some new theory or idea. But when that idea is used to support an argument to take some type of action, it must be taken as true. Since it is untested (let alone unproven), it is a fallacy to take it as true and whatever argument is being constructed with it would be logically false.

So, we could debate the concept of whether the Iraqi people want to have true representative democracy or not. We could not debate the concept of when to schedule true representative elections because it assumes we've already answered the first question.

I could think of a better example but I don't want to.

I totally agree with you and this is the crux of the issue. The problem is people set out saying "for the sake of the argument lets assume...." - I have no problem with that but when they arrive at the conclusion they tend to forget what assumptions got them there I the first place.

On occassion people can also slip into the trap of defending their position with that old classic "its just and opinion and I'm entitled to my opinion"..... as if this is some form of justification or evidence for the opinion.

 

[desertyeti]

I totally agree with you and this is the crux of the issue. The problem is people set out saying "for the sake of the argument lets assume...." - I have no problem with that but when they arrive at the conclusion they tend to forget what assumptions got them there I the first place.

On occassion people can also slip into the trap of defending their position with that old classic "its just and opinion and I'm entitled to my opinion"..... as if this is some form of justification or evidence for the opinion.

Hey, it works with religions:
"its just and religion and I'm entitled to my religion"

 

[Dr B]

Hey, it works with religions:
"its just and religion and I'm entitled to my religion"

Nice one and they are deluded that its a sound way to argue. When you encounter that claim all you need say is; indeed you are entitled to your opinion, and you are entitled to be wrong! Human entitlements are not evidence. But i know, you know that already

 

[Orangutan]

When the player says "I accuse!" and you look in the little black envelope to see if they're right.

 

[desertyeti]

Actually, as soon as someone's willing to argue against an alternate and entirely viable interpretation using no new data at all, it's a belief and more certain.

 

[Beth]

I've had a string of discussion recently with various people, both IRL and online, where the person has defended a viewpoint on a claim and then fallen back to stating 'it's just my opinion' or 'it's just speculation' or 'I was just wondering'

So, I'm willing to change my views here and say I've been too harsh. Maybe they are just speculating. But at what point does something go from 'just speculating' to something more certain?

Athon

I don't know about your IRL experiences, but I find that there is strong tendency for people on this forum to react to a speculative type comment as if the person was avering a firm belief. I find myself having to constantly remind and reiteriate that I am not justifying a belief in whatever "nonsense" is under discusion because of the general reaction I get here to that sort of thing.

Consider the Nessie thread, both you and DesertYeti responded to my "wasteful, unproductive and damaging to science" question as if I was asking about the damage that belief in such things does rather than the damage that results from simply giving consideration to the idea.

 

[desertyeti]

But plenty of consideration has been give, and is being given to the idea by plenty of people. The fact that there's simply nothing much to say about it suggests that time's better spent (not to mention money and brain cells) on topics about which something more solid can be said.

The problem comes from fervent believers who insist that there hasn't been ample consideration, or that something's being hidden, and make demands on researchers to take time and money away from other pursuits. Their minds are made up (regardless of what they claim). If they scream and shout about it long enough, it becomes something of an urban legend, and others will, without benefit of the full story, be swayed by the believers. And then the rest follows.

 

[Beth]

Plausible versus Possible

But plenty of consideration has been give, and is being given to the idea by plenty of people. The fact that there's simply nothing much to say about it suggests that time's better spent (not to mention money and brain cells) on topics about which something more solid can be said.

But that's no reason to condemn as believers (or any of the other popular derisive labels) those who choose to give the idea some consideration for themselves. Particularly if it's someone who has had an experience that they believe might represent an instance of the notion under discussion.

The problem comes from fervent believers who insist that there hasn't been ample consideration, or that something's being hidden, and make demands on researchers to take time and money away from other pursuits. Their minds are made up (regardless of what they claim). If they scream and shout about it long enough, it becomes something of an urban legend, and others will, without benefit of the full story, be swayed by the believers. And then the rest follows.

Well, aside from the issue of how much "wasteful unproductive or damaging to science" such fervent believers might actually be causing (I'm sure we have differing ideas about that as well!), that's no reason to treat everyone who expresses an opinion giving it a probability noticibly different from zero as if they were a fervent believer and doing that sort of damage to our society.

As a side issue, I heard a man on the radio today, talking about the war I think, refer to something as being plausible, but that it had not yet been determined if it was possible. Not a distinction I've heard before, but would it help if someone were to use the term "plausible" as opposed to "possible" in regard to nessie, bigfoot, etc.?

 

[desertyeti]

But that's no reason to condemn as believers (or any of the other popular derisive labels) those who choose to give the idea some consideration for themselves. Particularly if it's someone who has had an experience that they believe might represent an instance of the notion under discussion.

True, true.
But if the believe, then they're believers...not much can be done to change that statement of fact.

Well, aside from the issue of how much "wasteful unproductive or damaging to science" such fervent believers might actually be causing (I'm sure we have differing ideas about that as well!), that's no reason to treat everyone who expresses an opinion giving it a probability noticibly different from zero as if they were a fervent believer and doing that sort of damage to our society.

True again. Never have I argued that point. But fervent believers are still fervent believers. Probably everyone on this forum (even Randi himself as ecvidenced by his on-going efforts to look into these matters) gives consideration to many of the claims such as ESP, UFOs, PBJs, and the like. Otherwise, they'd simply be ignored.

 

[athon]

When the matter under speculation becomes the premise for a new argument.

It's fine to argue the merits of some new theory or idea. But when that idea is used to support an argument to take some type of action, it must be taken as true. Since it is untested (let alone unproven), it is a fallacy to take it as true and whatever argument is being constructed with it would be logically false.

So, we could debate the concept of whether the Iraqi people want to have true representative democracy or not. We could not debate the concept of when to schedule true representative elections because it assumes we've already answered the first question.

I could think of a better example but I don't want to.

Excellent; nicely worded. I like your example, too.

Athon

 

[athon]

I don't know about your IRL experiences, but I find that there is strong tendency for people on this forum to react to a speculative type comment as if the person was avering a firm belief. I find myself having to constantly remind and reiteriate that I am not justifying a belief in whatever "nonsense" is under discusion because of the general reaction I get here to that sort of thing.

Consider the Nessie thread, both you and DesertYeti responded to my "wasteful, unproductive and damaging to science" question as if I was asking about the damage that belief in such things does rather than the damage that results from simply giving consideration to the idea.

In part, that was the reason I started this thread; to avoid derailing the other one, and to ascertain how unfair I was being.

I also concede that I might not have been distinct in the differences between the damage an unsupported belief can cause and the damage taking action on an unsupported speculation might cause -- both very different to one another. Considering this has forced me to clarify my position.

Athon

 

[carcharodon]

I don't know about your IRL experiences, but I find that there is strong tendency for people on this forum to react to a speculative type comment as if the person was avering a firm belief.

Quite so. I have experienced this myself on more than one occasion here.

Consider the Nessie thread, both you and DesertYeti responded to my "wasteful, unproductive and damaging to science" question as if I was asking about the damage that belief in such things does rather than the damage that results from simply giving consideration to the idea.

I'm still bemused at the 'wasteful, unproductive and damaging to science' comments. I think the person who initially made the comments has either forgotten or is completely ignorant about the fact that some speculation about "woo" subjects can actually lead to productive and benefical (to science) projects.

Loch Ness is a prime example. A lot of the scientic knowledge about the loch itself has been garnered via side projects in conjuction with "woo" research. In essence, if not for the "woo" research and funds made available for the "woo" research, some of this scientific knowledge regarding the loch might not have been achieved. I don't think that anybody can seriously deny that without the interest in "woo" (Nessie), scientific knowledge about the loch itself would be less than it is. Then again, from my experience here some people obviously do deny this.

The mind boggles.

 

[athon]

Loch Ness is a prime example. A lot of the scientic knowledge about the loch itself has been garnered via side projects in conjuction with "woo" research...

The term is 'in spite of'. Sure, the loch might have been mapped with sonar in search of some giant aquatic creature, but I find it rather sad that good science had to come as an accidental consequence of an ill-supported speculation rather than on its own merit. I couldn't imagine that nobody had ever considered doing it as its own project, or at least wondered about it. Resources being scarce, I dare say that it was never considered as it was an operation that relied on funding and resources.

Yes, it was beneficial that good science came out of it in the end, in spite of the inspiration that incited it.

When we search the garden for fairies and happen to come away with a catalogue of the plants that grow there, I consider that science has in some way suffered.

Athon

 

[Dr B]

As a side issue, I heard a man on the radio today, talking about the war I think, refer to something as being plausible, but that it had not yet been determined if it was possible. Not a distinction I've heard before, but would it help if someone were to use the term "plausible" as opposed to "possible" in regard to nessie, bigfoot, etc.?

Thats odd. The difference between plausibility, possibility and probability is one of the first things I was taught and University and something I and others have mentioned around here regularly. You are right - it is an important distinction

 

[Beth]

In part, that was the reason I started this thread; to avoid derailing the other one, and to ascertain how unfair I was being.

I also concede that I might not have been distinct in the differences between the damage an unsupported belief can cause and the damage taking action on an unsupported speculation might cause -- both very different to one another. Considering this has forced me to clarify my position.

Athon

I appreciate your starting another thread. I, too, find the conversations here to be helpful in clarifying my own thoughts.

 

[Beth]

When we search the garden for fairies and happen to come away with a catalogue of the plants that grow there, I consider that science has in some way suffered.

Athon

This may be the core of the difference between us. I don't consider that science has suffered in this situation. Perhaps you could elaborate on how you feel science has "suffered"?

 

[Beth]

Thats odd. The difference between plausibility, possibility and probability is one of the first things I was taught and University and something I and others have mentioned around here regularly. You are right - it is an important distinction

It is a distinction I had never heard made prior to this interview, so I am unaware of what you were taught regarding them. Perhaps you could elaborate.

As a statistician, I consider probability a measure of possibility/plausibility. I would consider something plausible to have a very low measure of probability - basically speculation with little or no evidence. Possible refers only to a non-zero probability without any implication of how high or low other than the context of the discussion. I suspect there may be different connotations to those words in your part of the world.