Difference between revisions of "That's your opinion"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(link example) |
(→to file: more internal links) |
||
| Line 13: | Line 13: | ||
==Links== | ==Links== | ||
===to file=== | ===to file=== | ||
| − | * '''2009-03-29''' [http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2009/03/29/the-ethics-of-framing-science/ The Ethics of Framing Science: Four Guiding Principles] "...pundits such as [[Richard Dawkins]] use their authority as scientists to argue their personal opinion that science undermines the validity of religion..." – totally ignoring the fact that Dawkins made a rational, evidence-based [[The God Delusion|case]] for this conclusion. The assumption seems to be that certain issues are ''definitionally'' "matters of opinion", and therefore any position taken on those issues must also be "opinion" regardless of what the facts might be. | + | * '''2009-03-29''' [http://scienceblogs.com/framing-science/2009/03/29/the-ethics-of-framing-science/ The Ethics of Framing Science: Four Guiding Principles] "...pundits such as [[Richard Dawkins]] use their authority as scientists to argue their personal opinion that science undermines the validity of [[religion]]..." – totally ignoring the fact that Dawkins made a [[rational]], evidence-based [[The God Delusion|case]] for this conclusion. The assumption seems to be that certain issues are ''definitionally'' "matters of opinion", and therefore any position taken on those issues must also be "opinion" regardless of what the facts might be. |
Revision as of 02:59, 25 January 2015
The Dude uses the phrase in casual conversation.
About
Saying "That's your opinion" (or other words to the same effect) in response to a reasoned argument is basically a form of dismissal that ignores any objective, rational case the defender may have made.
It is similar to the "That's your bias" attack.
Links
to file
- 2009-03-29 The Ethics of Framing Science: Four Guiding Principles "...pundits such as Richard Dawkins use their authority as scientists to argue their personal opinion that science undermines the validity of religion..." – totally ignoring the fact that Dawkins made a rational, evidence-based case for this conclusion. The assumption seems to be that certain issues are definitionally "matters of opinion", and therefore any position taken on those issues must also be "opinion" regardless of what the facts might be.