The Value of Minority Opinion

Earlier on I was having a little debate with myself over the value of minority opinion.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether anyone agrees with them or not, even if based on faulty logic or blind ignorance. However, not all 'minority opinion' is going to be based on a poor argument, some will be well rounded, well thought through arguments.

My feeling is that however big the majority opinion on a certain topic, minority opinions are still important because they can highlight caveats, weaknesses, or alternatives.

There is a tendency, I feel, to dismiss minority opinions (especially when the majority opinion is on a very touchy/passionate/controversial topic), as being irrelevant or misinformed.

There are times in history when minority opinion became majority opinion.. and I think majority opinion, especially on social values, is cultural to the time. What we decide is 'right' now we may decide is 'wrong' later.

So yes... the importance of minority opinion, thoughts?

Edan wrote: Earlier on I was having a little debate with myself over the value of minority opinion.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether anyone agrees with them or not, even if based on faulty logic or blind ignorance. However, not all 'minority opinion' is going to be based on a poor argument, some will be well rounded, well thought through arguments.

My feeling is that however big the majority opinion on a certain topic, minority opinions are still important because they can highlight caveats, weaknesses, or alternatives.

There is a tendency, I feel, to dismiss minority opinions (especially when the majority opinion is on a very touchy/passionate/controversial topic), as being irrelevant or misinformed.

There are times in history when minority opinion became majority opinion.. and I think majority opinion, especially on social values, is cultural to the time. What we decide is 'right' now we may decide is 'wrong' later.

So yes... the importance of minority opinion, thoughts?

As with many things, I think that context is important. When discussing certain matters like discrimination or privilege, the voice of the minority is hugely important as they're more likely to have felt the effects.

But I think there are also matters where ones state as a minority/majority group (or any similar distinction) wouldn't matter.

So I don't think the issues lies in whether minority voices are important, but the contexts in which they need to be appropriately acknowledged.

Context is always important.

Everyone’s opinion, rather in the majority or minority, is valid.

The issue is that we are all different. We all have differing views. And we all expect something different. Where a well-balanced group tries to “please” all, it is not always possible or practical. And it is to the majority that many things will fall. And, sometimes you just have to piss everyone off because there is no pleasing any of them.

These are the issues with being in a group… no matter which side of the fence ones opinion or views fall we will never get the way we want all the time. And some will get it rarely.

I would also advice against conforming to popular opinion just because it is popular opinion. For one, it destroys the individual that one is. And for another, it is not always right, just popular. It has been said, “The reasonable man adapts to the world around him. The unreasonable man expects the world to adapt to him. Therefore all progress is made by the unreasonable man.” Franklin.

Yes, context is important.

A Minority believe that the earth is flat. Their opinion doesn't matter.

Edan, I'm dumbfounded some times at the real power of the individual. As I live and breath my goal is to build and never tare down. In my life I've noticed rather it be a group of color or race or even idea there is a very real power when they unite. Some claim their diety is in the mist where they come together in the name of the collection. The point is when they come together, doesn't really matter what or who, when you create the connection it becomes alive. The smallest of voices in some cases are the most vocal and changing. Regardless of what u call em here in America the minorities rule everything... they just don't see it that way. Every, almost every minority here who has said anything has gotten attention and changed some forms of policy or work place code. The individual I think is the sleeping Giant that needs rousing...

Alethea Thompson wrote: A Minority believe that the earth is flat. Their opinion doesn't matter.

Perhaps the content of the opinion doesn't, but maybe the reason why they do believe that is important.
How do you change opinion if you don't know why someone believes what they believe?

I'm having trouble following this conversation. I try to view the minority opinion as openly as the majority opinion, and actually give it greater value for the potential for being a source positive change then the status quo. I really do not feel comfortable with aligning with an opinion based on it being majority held, or minority held... I tend to gravitate towards either having my own opinions or being open minded.

Edan wrote:

Alethea Thompson wrote: A Minority believe that the earth is flat. Their opinion doesn't matter.

Perhaps the content of the opinion doesn't, but maybe the reason why they do believe that is important.
How do you change opinion if you don't know why someone believes what they believe?

The Earth being flat or round makes literally no difference to life- only to those which need to know the earth is round. You don't need to change their opinion. It literally doesn't matter.

The people that it matters to are those which work with sciences that require an understanding of the earth's spherical nature. Most sciences don't need to know it- people that deal with flight patterns (not just planes) and the like do, but for the most part no one should care what they believe on the matter.

It is easy to follow Locke in saying that any disagreeing point of view is helpful in that it can keep us thinking about our own and thus keep it fresh and well-reasoned and from freezing into a dogma. Of course Locke doesn't do much to establish that beyond asserting it. Sure, at some point a debate about the shape of our earth may have been an interesting and worthwhile discussion. And a healthy argument can in theory arise today just as it did back in that day, yet still the reason we don't invite flat-earthers to give geology lessons is not dogmatism. We don't invite geocentrist to educate us on astronomy either, or creationists to explain fundamentals of biology. Some debates are so completed and conclusively desided that it is a waste of time to raise them again, and an embarassment, more than an opportunity to learn anything remotely new.
Of course, on the other hand it is a convenient cop out to just declare a matter settled when faced with challenge and succumb to the dogmatism silly old Locke warned us against.

Neither the validity nor the soundness of any opinion is anyhow impacted by how many people hold it or how strongly they do. What matters is why it is a reasonable one to hold. Notice, this is not about the personal reasons a specific individual came to their conclusion, but rather why anybody else should.
So whether an opinion is held by a majority of people, or a majority of experts, or a minority of either, for that matter, is irrelevant. I think that opinions we should keep considering are the ones that are the most original. Opinions held up exclusively by tired and debunked arguments are worthless not so much because of how uncompelling they are but because of how little the circle affected would stand to gain from going over the same old points yet another time.