The Truth About Answering Controversial Questions...

In My Humble Opinion
1

You may have heard the question, “Do you support gay marriage?” or “Do you support same-sex marriage?”, and you may have given the time to answer it. If you are a person completely uninformed about this issue, and completely disconnected from it, then how would you answer this question? Would you say “yes” or “no”, or would you give a neutral and ambiguous answer?

The truth about answering this type of controversial question is that it is not really asking about whether you support same-sex marriage or not. It is merely a polite way to ask you a more loaded question: “Are you a bigot or not?” Answering “yes” or “no” can ruin your career or defame your reputation, depending on whom you answer. If you are answering this question wrongly to a Biblical literalist, then that person may think, “OMG! He’s/She’s deluded! He/She supports sin!” and then condemn you for it. If you are answering this question wrongly to a gay rights activist, then that person may think, “OMG! He/She is an anti-gay bigot!” and then tell everyone about it, so that everyone else will hate you and stop supporting you in your work, career, and personal life. The best, most cautious way to answer this type of question, I think, is to approach it in a neutral, ambiguous tone of voice; however, you must only do so, if you are uninformed, distant, and unaffected by this issue. That way, the voice or opinion will sound genuine, because your tone of voice matches your uncertainty about matters like these.

Another notable example would be abortion. Answering this question should use caution, as both sides, pro-life and pro-choice, can be very sentimental and opinionated about this issue.

What makes the work of a scientist difficult is that a scientist must do all of the above, when he or she wants to research in that field. That scientist must take a neutral stance, and find a method that is likely going to be peer-reviewed and criticized but provide results that could be falsified. A scientist should never use absolutes; a scientist should never say “prove”. Sure, a scientist can become a conservative or liberal activist, but its neutral position will be tarnished, and his words incredible. However, a scientist can find evidence that supports one side or the other, but never necessarily prove the validity of one side or the other.

In my humble opinion, I think neutrality is the best possible way to circumvent answering the actual question, if one is uninformed about it. Answering the question in an ambiguous or neutral manner is unlikely to get you pulverized or condemned. You may face some criticism, when you make an attempt to elude from the issue, but the critical consequences of neutrality are much more bearable to face than choosing the absolutes and adamantly adhering to them.

2

? Do what I do. “I don’t care to discuss such hot-button topics in my professional life.” Because to be honest, eventually people will pick up which way you lean, anyway.

3

Yes, be careful to equivocate on every question you are asked - how else will you run for office in the future?

Or, y’know, you could educate yourself on the issues and form an opinion. :rolleyes:

4

Absolutely. But if it’s an important question, you also have an obligation to learn enough to be informed. And if you are informed, you also have an obligation to stand up for what you believe in. So:

There is no God.
Women should have the right to have an abortion.
Gays should have the right to get married.
Global warming is real.

If someone is uncomfortable hearing my opinion on these topics, they shouldn’t have asked in the first place.

5

I think that would depend if you adhere to a specific ideology, the far right or the far left. For an example, it would be incorrect to assume that, just because you favor environmental policies and want to make the world a greener place by going green, that would mean you also do not support the death penalty, as the position of environmental policies and the position for not supporting the death penalty are liberal positions. One can sway one way on one issue, but sway another on another issue.

6

Although your latter three opinions do hold validity and support, the first opinion, “There is no God”, has no support. There is no way to prove whether there is or is not a god or many gods. Evidence may suggest that godless, natural phenomenon is behind everything; however, it does not suggest that there is no god absolutely. Also, the claim “There is no God” can be a direct insult to the religious, who claims the diametrical opposite, “There is a God” or “There are many gods.” Of course, when one is insulted, one will become defensive for one’s personal beliefs and stick to it, unwilling to change.

Perhaps, a compromise is needed to comfort the religious that there is a God or many gods and that the god(s) supports/support the work of nature. That way, everyone is happy! Compromise, don’t you love it?

7

If you want to live a life without controversy, simply avoid the big three: Sex, Politics, Religion.

However, as long as you have brought up the subjects, “…the claim “There is no God” can be a direct insult to the religious…” can easily be stated, “the claim “There is a God” can be a direct insult to the non-religious.” If you want to believe in some wizard in the sky, fine - but don’t assume everyone does and keep it to yourself.

The same goes for the idiots who do not believe in evolution. If they think the verdict is still out on science, may I suggest they go to a faith healer the next time they get cancer, and I will go to those godless scientists for some chemo and radiation treatments.

I do not bring up subjects that could cause controversy at work, but if some clown starts foisting their beliefs on me, you can be damned well assured I am going to let them hear the other side of the story.

And getting a jump on the zealots - if 12/12/12 really is the end of the world, feel free to sign over the mortgage on your house and give me your bank cards - if you are so sure, then you won’t need them on 12/13/12 anyway.

8

Still, rational people are comfortable with assertions such as “There is no God” or “Pluto’s moon Nix does not have a marzipan center the diameter of a basketball,” unless some evidence is presented to the contrary.

9

Cake, please.

10

That was what I meant. In science, nothing can be proven. However, evidence does support the hypothesis but cannot necessarily deny it. Even if there is overwhelming evidence against whatever hypothesis, then the hypothesis is still a valid hypothesis and serves as an alternative. However, this “alternative hypothesis” should be noted that it has a lot of counterevidence, which makes people reject this “alternative hypothesis” but do not necessarily deny the existence of this hypothesis. See what I mean?

Let’s pretend that the null hypothesis is “There is a god or many gods.” The alternative hypothesis is “There is no god or many gods,” and depending on the evidence, if the evidence can support the hypothesis that there is some other explanation for the phenomenon, then the questioner has rejected the null hypothesis. “Failing to reject” the null hypothesis does not necessarily mean that the questioner will “accept the alternative hypothesis” that there is no god or many gods." So, by this explanation, one can assume that both hypotheses are valid, but one may be more valid than other due to the number of evidence that contradicts the claim that a supernatural deity is behind the phenomenon.

11

If some clown starts foisting their beliefs on me, you can be damned well assured that I am going to ignore that clown and leave a simple message: “I am not interested in participating in this discussion. This discussion is prone to start bad-mouthing and uncivil behavior, so I am going to refrain myself from contribution. I hope you respect my words and talk about this elsewhere. Thank you.”

I think neutrality rather than direct opposition works fine for me. :slight_smile: It may not work for you, but that’s ok too. :smiley:

12

Well golly! Thank goodness you’re here to share your wisdom! In the past I would just beat the offending person to death with a hammer, but now, thanks to you, I’ve learned a different way.

WTH is the point of this thread, anyway? Obvious proposition is obvious.

13

I don’t think scientists are under some kind of obligation to pretend they have no opinions on social or political issues. If you don’t want to get into a discussion of these issues, say so, but don’t pretend you’re holding yourself to some kind of higher standard- you’re just trying to avoid being criticized by people with strong opinions. Is that actually a good thing?

14

Scientists are actually people as well.
We have opinions. Just because we are rational doesn’t obligate use to become neutral on all controversial topics. In fact, it can be argued that doing science requires being controversial.

15

The things listed there, except for global warming, can be opinions. Support for SSM is clearly not a factual thing. Saying SSM does not create monster children on the other hand is. The statement that there is no god is well supported, but as an existential negative cannot be proven given its infinite domain. (Just like the statement that there are no black swans.)

Your null hypothesis is a terrible one. God is ill-defined. Which god? Hairy thunderer or cosmic muffin? Many gods in the sense of the Greek pantheon or in the sense of the mutually contradictory gods there are today? The null hypothesis that there are no gods, on the other hand, is quite easy to falsify, since one just has to pop up.

16

I know that the null hypothesis is a terrible one. I admit it. Because I admit my faults, I hope that next time you would politely offer a suggestion on how to make a better suggestion rather than commenting on how terrible it is. I like your other sentences, though.

17

Well, I have been taught in my Biology classes that I should just state the facts. If the facts tell me something, state it, but don’t extrapolate the data in unrelated subjects. When making a summary of a news article or a journal article, summarize it exactly as it is written, and do not interpret the information any differently than how it is written. You may rephrase it in your own words, but you can not twist the words to mean something differently or serve your own political or philosophical predilections. Therefore, even if the material is controversial, I try my best to write in a neutral manner.

I am also a Wikipedia editor, by the way. :smiley:

18

With these questions, the key is usually in who’s asking. I won’t hold back my opinion; however, some people will receive a curt response while other people will receive a more detailed explanation. For example, earlier this month someone on these boards asked me my views on abortion. I answered the question, but didn’t launch into a detailed explanation of my views because I’ve found that if you hold a minority viewpoint on this board, you can be verbally attacked and torn to shreds if you’re not careful.

In terms of being uninformed, I think in some contexts it’s okay to admit your limited understanding of the subject. When I say I support same-sex marriage, I admit that I am not very familiar with the concept of a civil union, and a more thorough understanding of it might alter my viewpoint. But when global warming denialists say that the issue is far from settled, I point out to them that peer reviewed scientific journals are in near-universal agreement that humans are wreaking havoc on the earth’s climate.

19

This isn’t the way science works, at all. If a hypothesis has no evidence for it and a ton of counterevidence against it, sure we can say “this was hypothesized” but continuing to treat it as valid is bad science. It is invalidated through experimentation and should not be considered on the same level as things which have been validated.

It was once hypothesized that fire was due to phlogistons. It was a fair hypothesis, given the known information at the time, but further study and research - i.e. science - proved it to be incorrect. Fire has a different mechanism, and the phlogiston theory was invalidated. If you start talking about how it’s just as good of an “alternate hypothesis” as the current scientific model of fire, you reveal yourself to be ignorant of the actual facts of the situation and of the scientific method.

You are making the same mistake that the anti-evolution people make, saying “it’s just a theory!!!” as if that means something. Words have meanings, and in the scientific community they have very specific and and precise meanings. “Theory” or “hypothesis” come about based upon known information and the quest to confirm or invalidate that information and/or to seek out additional facts. They do NOT mean “random idea that came out of my ass and I’m going to insist it’s possible despite all evidence to the contrary”.

Also (since I’m sure it will come up): just because (generic) you, as someone who hasn’t studied something extensively can’t imagine something to be true, such as evolution, that doesn’t mean it isn’t true. Leave science to the scientists, and if you really want to understand it… become a scientist and leave the philosophical and religious texts behind.

As for your “compromise”:

This is nothing more than intelligent design/creationism…which is not supported by science and has no place in scientific discussion.

You are not taking a non-controversial stance. You are expecting people to “not rock the boat” so as not to piss off religious zealots. Sorry, we aren’t going to do that.

20

I will never give an opinion on anything until I have read both sides of the question. Thwn I answer truthfully.