A legitimate controversy

[Wilder]

Here is something fun:

Something that has been on my mind lately is what defines our stances on issues and who we are in a political or ideological sense. Naturally, what we think on the issues is relevant, but what I am starting to think is equally important is the emphasis that we place on issues, as well as the degree of certainty that we associate with any given issue.

I would place all of the various controversies on a spectrum: at one end you have legitimate controversies, which are areas that you feel that are understandably contentious, and on the other you have illegitimate controversies which you feel that one side is clearly right.

For me legitimate controversies come in two types, the issues that I feel that I simply do not have the knowledge or understanding to responsibly develop an opinion (for me taxes and government economic policy escape me, and I rarely feel that I can defend or assail most arguments on the subject), the other being issues that seem to have a highly subjective major element (abortion comes to mind, as do questions about the broader progress of civilization vs. indigenous societies). Legitimate Controversies on the other hand, are more simple: I feel right, and the other side is wrong, for me creationism comes to mind. Interestingly, I have found that people almost always have an explanation as to why people disagree with them on legitimate controversies.

So, what I would like to see is people here give a list of issues and how much that controversy seems legit to you. rate on a 1 to 10 scale where 1 is a completely legitimate controversy, and 10 is an issue that you are totaly certain on. Also, short explanations are always edifying.


For me:

Domestic economic policy: 2.0
Don't understand it. And reliable basic facts are hard to come by.

International economic policy: 4.5
I know more, but still not enough to argue with great conviction.

Abortion: 1.0
Seems totally subjective to me

Democracy vs other forms of government: 7.0
Strong convictions and moral stances, but has a large subjective and circumstantial element.

Creation vs um, all of science: 10.0
I think people that disagree with me are clearly only interested in propagating their beliefs and never to call them into question. It is inconceivable to them that they could be wrong.

Intelligent design: 7.0
Still not science, but certainly more subjective and nebulous

The existence of Anthropogenic Global Warming: 9.0
Used to be lower, but has steadily climbed as my knowledge broadens, and long disproved arguments against it continue to be parroted. I think the reasons people dislike to come to grips with it is because it causes some problems for the libertarian principle of non aggression, the idea being that now we can effect people without intending to, and governments may become involved.

The various plans to mitigate AGW: 6.5
Harder, right?

Islamophobia vs politically correct dhiminitude () :7.0
How do you determine if a critic is honestly proffering constructive criticism of Islam, or simply a bigot with an axe to grind? I would see if his arguments are a) correct b) fair c) honest. Sometimes it is easy to determine, sometimes not.

Just some examples, but I am really curious to see what people here think. No posting unless you have provided a list!

[CamilleBonparte]

We have a thread like this in the stickies.

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=55841

[Wilder]

no, this is different, I was just curious how sure people are, as opposed to what exactly their position is. I said that in the first paragraph I thought.

[Strelok]

Anyway you look at it is ultimately subjective.

Early-term Abortion: 10
(I put similar value to it as a pre-aborted chicken.)

Late-term Abortion: 1
(It's really a hard case.)

Anarchy vs Statism: 1
(Social order without the state is a legitimate form of heavy debate.)

Minarchism vs X: 10
(I cannot ever support a sprawling state.)

Existence of man-caused Global Warming: 7.5
(This used to be lower until I did extensive research and recognized the ccognitive dissonance of many skeptics.)

How to reduce our effects on GW: 1
(Economically friendly solutions are tough.)

Science vs metaphysics as recognition in politics: 10
(Science should get the bearing most definitely. I value empirical knowledge to the fullest extent and recognition of this in politics I find to be important. Being politically inspired by the insubstantial is a scary thought.)

[Maverick]

For me legitimate controversies come in two types, the issues that I feel that I simply do not have the knowledge or understanding to responsibly develop an opinion, the other being issues that seem to have a highly subjective major element

That's a good attitude, I think epistemic arrogance is definitely a problem in our egocentric society.

I don't know what to believe, for example you have "capitalist" in your signature, does the US even resemble free market capitalism more than a planned economy? I think most people would say the answer to that question is self-evident but I know there are some economists, regulators, hedge fund managers etc. who would argue convincingly against that common sense assumption.

That and I think politics is just small talk for most people, something to occupy the dead air so they don't have to say... reflect on how dull and unsatisfying their lives are.