TED Conversations

Sanjay Sharma

Ex Director, Maastricht University India Institute, Maastricht University

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Is it constructive to attempt arguing convincingly (forming opinion) about something not yet known or clear?

The issue in question is the opinion formation on the recent sex scandal involving the IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn. While so far no details are out, a French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy has already written in favor of Strauss-Kahn ( http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-16/bernard-henri-lvy-the-dominique-strauss-kahn-i-know/full/ ) whereas Laila Lalami, an associate professor at the University of California, defends the accuser of Strauss-Khan ( http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2011-05-17/laila-lalami-defends-dominique-strauss-kahns-accuser/full/ )

What is your take on both approaches?

0
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    May 19 2011: I heard about that today, As usual, new news is the same old story. ALWAYS Self Indulgent or propelling speculation... What would good old mankind be without it? No one ever would have heard of Salem...or Science... or other fun examples.-sidethought- Lets put every presidential candidate on the same stage next year and ask them your exact same question.See who really wants the job.
    Yeah..It's constructive. Not always agreeable but constructive. Though it's really just as constructive as someone saying that it's not constructive. We all paint the world as we see it through our opinions. 7 billion colors, one at a time and all at once all of the time. We're like pixels on a screen. No clue what the picture is but we just shine anyway.

    P.S. Hey TED! Hows about a Sex Scandal Channel for an idea!!! All the sleaze you'll never need in HD3D on the SXSC!!!

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.