That is the title of a book by Richard P. Feynman. It sums up an attitude of not just having independent thought, but actually exercising it. This is a thing generally considered good. Yet, some seem to figure that that applies to them, but not to others.
There was a relay of BBC radio I heard this afternoon that made me think of that title. It seemed to be a bit of meta-media (interviews of reporters, that sort of thing). What got me was the suggestion, one I've heard before elsewhere, that if there were more "world coverage" in the U.S.A. that knowing the opinions of others would, and would be expected to (so therefore, should) change policies. This is inherently false, and dangerously silly.
While greater coverage of the events in the world would be good, coverage of opinion would be of minimal, if indeed any, value. What others may believe should not necessarily have any effect on what one believes. An argument from and with fact might well serve to change a conclusion, but mere opinion must never have such an influence. What is fashionable is not necessarily what is right. Popularity does not assure correctness. Unpopularity does not assure incorrectness. Having policies determined by world opinion might make for popularity, but would be irresponsible.
no subject
Date: 26 Mar 2003 20:58 (UTC)1) Understanding others' opinions should not necessarily alter your own convictions, but it can serve to teach you how to better communicate with them. Even if our country's convictions stay the same, it's much easier to relate to foreign nations and get along with them if we listen to their concerns and at least explain how our motives and goals will affect them.
2) While coverage of others' opinions in the world doesn't interest me, what interests me is coverage of more facts about what goes on outside of the United States. The more truth that is presented, the easier it is to make sure your actions match your convictions.