>

No, but I don't think I explained myself well. I'm saying that if I form a general opinion on how conspiracies are impossible to sustain at a large scale for a long time, and I consider both sides of that general argument before holding that opinion strongly, then when any new claim comes out that posits a large scale, long term conspiracy, I can dismiss it without further analysis.
/u/mxlp (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

I like this topic. I generally agree with what you are saying and for reasons you mention plus it's helped me discover the errors of my own thinking. There are even books about conversation skills that advise listening to the other person and repeating what you think you've heard so the other person can let you know if you have a correct understanding.
My only arguments:
- Time. There are situations when someone must act quickly and delaying action with further discussion could be costly or catastrophic. In those situations a person has to go with the information they have and deal with the consequences. The hope, of course, is that the person isn't too far off in their judgement. A good example of this is one person deciding whether to use lethal force on another person.
- For some people, certain opinions are part of their identity. Exposing these opinions to scrutiny is like exposing their identity to scrutiny. In this situation, the person may view a rational discussion of the closely-held opinion as, "academic" or "theoretical," or even as a personal attack. I think a person in this situation has to already be open to change before they can entertain others' arguments. >

Agreed that in areas of self-preservation you need to go with your gut. In much the same way that if you feel that you should cross the street at night when coming up to a group of young people who happen to be black, it might be best to re-assess your possible prejudices in the safety of your home than discover that your gut was right and there were other elements of their behaviour that your subconsciously picked up on.
The identity one is a huge point, and that's been the biggest pushback I've had in real life, where people who identify as non-hetro feel personally attacked at the very idea of having to justify their sexual orientation.
This is the biggest area that I could maybe be moved on and I'm still trying to work through it, especially trying to think of counter examples where we would expect people to challenge their identity.
Definitely got me thinking so will come back later if I change my mind on this. >

Identity is a tricky one. I think many people do end up questioning their identity and trying to justify it. It is often seen when people change religions or the like. So it does happen, and it can be done. That said, I also see the issue with "needing to justify" any part of your identity. I tend to trend deontological on this one (If I'm remembering this correctly) - is it something that anyone would have to potentially justify? Like asking you to justify your gender doesn't make much sense for the normative, so it doesn't make much sense for the alternative. Other things may be in poor taste, but don't seem inherently as offensive to me - i.e. tatoos or obvious hair die. Especially if everyone is willing to accept a very superficial answer like "I felt like blue hair yesterday, so I died my hair". 
I think there are certainly some things you could strongly ask for in identity justification also - maybe choosing to be a cop, or join the military. Or why you are an investment banker. 
And then there's the to my mind unjustifiable - KKK member, serial murderer, etc. But maybe making someone actually think about why they're a member of a certain group could be useful. >

Sometimes the full "position" of people on one side is very scattered.
I think this is common for people holding contrarian views.  If you ask a dozen flat earthers for information about antartica and the artic circle, you'll get varying answers.  Often, there isn't a consensus among the contrarians of their alternative theory, just agreement that the more common opinion is wrong.
In these situations, trying to debunk each of the contrarians' views is playing whack-a-mole.  Debunk one idea, and they'll just drop it and pick up another they've heard.  you can't hit them all.
the truth often gets views to converge because the proof is there for experts demonstrate.  False ideas sometimes don't.  So, understanding the multitude of false ideas to an extent that you could represent them might be a lot harder than just understanding the strong evidence behind the truth. >

Actually, you can hit them all, of course you can. But they don't give a shit. These people don't care about reason. You may as well try and convince a creationist that evolution is a thing. You're wasting your time. >

If your only requirement is being able to briefly explain what the opposing viewpoint is, are you really arguing that we need to understand the opposing view, or just that we need to be aware of it? Like for the homophobia example, is it enough for me to know that someone is homophobic because of their religion? Would it be enough to say "some people believe the Earth is flat because all the evidence of a round earth are lies made up by the government"? 
And for that matter, what if I'm not aware of the opposing view? Say I have a strong belief that other humans have minds, and I've never come across anyone saying they didn't believe that. Is that unreasonable, in your view? Do I need to research every belief I hold to see whether anyone disagrees before it's acceptable for me to have a strong opinion? >

On your first question, I think that would be an improvement on the current situation, so as there's admittedly ambiguity here I would err on the side of saying yes, that's sufficient. That being said ideally people would have a slightly more detailed understanding e.g. "you're against gay people because of three key passages in the old testament".
On the second point, there's two elements. I think you should question everything, but I think it's understandable to not realise you've made certain assumptions that you've never been given reason to doubt or question. And secondly I think if you are aware that there *could* be an opposing view, in the days of the internet I think you should at the least do a cursory google or equivalent. >

This grants a significant amount of power - as well as pointless time - to those who have opposing views that have no merit.
E.G. I do not need to be able to explain in a way that would be satisfactory to flat-earthers the framework and idea of their theory.  In an argument about the shape of the earth there position is so thoroughly untenable that wasting time gain sufficient knowledge to satisfy your standard would be an absurd engagement. >

Other people have made this argument. I think you're actually appealing to a more foundational opinion about the trustworthiness of the scientific community (among other things) that makes any conspiracy theory of that scale is untenable. You therefore don't need to address the specifics of the theory.
Or if you haven't done that, then I would argue that you have actually unreasonably dismissed the flat earth theory. >

So...again, you knock someone off of having a reasonably strong idea simply by postulating an alternative.  
(And...your claim as I read it is that current knowledge can't be held in "strong opinion" when counter-knowledge is not deeply understood.  Maybe I'm misreading.) >

I explicitly said that you don't need a deep understanding. And also I feel like my previous reply explains this point. If I have an established opinion that "conspiracies can't be sustained at a large scale for a long time" and I evaluate the counter arguments and settle on my opinion, then it doesn't matter what flavours of conspiracy a flat earther presents, I already have a more generalised position that will always apply so I don't need to assess their detail to have a strong opinion on it. >

Whatever.  Doesn't matter - same problem.  You're granting power to knock you off your knowledge simply by postulating an alternative.  Why would we move from having a strong opinion to not having one based on the simple fact of someone proposing an alternative?  If information is useful, pragmatic, achieves desired results I can and should absolutely continue to act upon my knowledge even if someone poses an alternative idea.  
In an area where "truth" with a capital T is needed it might be worth my time to assess all alternatives, but for most things the noise of alternatives would be absurd to pursue.
I think you believe this sounds like being open to alternatives and a continued pursuit of truth.  That's great, and there is a place for it.  However, if "strong opinion" means something akin to "going to act upon" then the need to act outweighs the probality of improvement in outcome through following all alternatives to the point of sufficient knowledge (whatever your bar is).  You would spend literally all your time on almost a single topic, in a life where you need actionable information innumerable times a day/week/year. >

I don't think you're understanding my point, but I have given somebody a delta for this as it is a bit different than my original position.
I'm saying that if you can form a generalised opinion on the flat earth conspiracy theory, then any variation of that will not need further consideration and can just be ignored/dismissed, but only because you've established that general opinion that still applies. >

The square earth theory is not at all like the flat earth theory.  You just don't understand it.
Are you now less strong in your own ideas about the shape of the earth?  
If I say that your car will 1 in 1,000,000 times turn right when you turn the wheel left are you doing to know not hold a strong opinion about how your car behaves?  Should an insurance company raise rates until they fully understand that idea, and the thousand I can write right here that should knock away confidence in current knowledge?  Simply because I pose it? >

I'm not sure. Do I need to know the ideas fueling flat earth conspiracies before I can strongly believe that the earth is not flat? Or can I trust the volumes of research and science? >

I think you can appeal to established foundational opinions. If you have previously formed an opinion on the trustworthiness of the scientific community and have considered conspiratorial alternatives, that then applies to flat earth. And I genuinely think that's a much better way of forming an opinion on flat earth. >

Im not sure I understand what you mean by this?
What do you mean  "have considered conspiratorial alternatives"?
Do I need to have a strong understanding of Flat Earth, Hollow Earth, Matrix, Tortoise Shell, and Interior Cylinder (or whatever its called) theories before I can form an opinion on the shape of the Earth?
Do I entirely invalidate your belief on the shape of the world everytime I invent a new alternative theory?  Or can we stop at a certain point?