Neutral on a topic?

[Phil]

Interesting. I go to an SAT prep course where we have to practice writing some crappy essay. The topic was very interesting. Basically it was talking about neutrality in any subject. As referring to scientific studies, the question was this- "What is your opinion on the following- Is it easier to advance knowledge, studies, and discovery with a stance of neutrality?" Basically saying- if you dont take an opinion, is it easier to make a discision? I personally said no, that it is better to take a side because if you are neutral you just generally dont care if a decicion is made or not. For example-

Recently we had a speaker come to our school to speak about his discoveries in the grand canyon concerning nautiloids (tiny extinct sea creatures). The evolutionists and athiests he worked with said that there were only 10 or so fossils, thus disproving that a flood caused their extinction (dating back to Noah's flood). He didnt beleive them. Instead of being neutral and not caring, he took a stance. He went to the grand canyon and discovered about 100 more fossils that had been blatantly over-looked. He proved that it was possible that there could have been a mass-extinction of nautiloids on a grand scale due to a possible flood- i.e., Noahs flood.

Basically, if he had remained neutral he never would have discovered the 100+ nautiloid fossils. He advanced science and the knowledge of the extinct species by taking a side. That was my argument. But here was the question I asked- "is is possible to remain neutral?"

I mean think about it. How can you remain neutral? Most people have one of two factors-

1) sub-concious bias or
2) a defenate opinon

So to remain neutral is impossible I would think. I was careful not to mix neutrality with mixed opinion. Take the presidency for example. Some would say that Bush has good and bad things going for him, so they are neutral as to what he should do. But either way they have an opinion, so they arent really neutral so to speak. So what do you think? Is it possible with the current events of our world to remain neutral and un-biased? Seems pretty hard to me, but hey- I'm sure it could happen.

*note*- please dont make some bush-bashing comment about whats written above such as "LOL bush r TEH SUXORZ! He duznt have n-e Guud things 4 HIM LOL!" I mean this as a serious discussion and that was only an example. This discussion isnt about bush. If you'd like to use that as an example feel free to do so, but this isnt primarily about him.

[Tidus5]

Hmm... sucks for you. When I had to take the SAT we didnt have to write an essay. What did they take out of the old one? The science?

[Cuchulainn]

No one, no matter the topic, is ever truely neutral. Everyone has at least a slant to either side, more in common with one, more sympathy with one etc.

It's very hard to stay neutral in discussions. The very fact you decide to get involved in a topic is evidence of an interest either way of it. Complete neutality is only found in apathy.

[Phil]

Thats what I thought. So isn't the SAT question kinda pointless?

[Chris]

Anyone who chooses to be neautral, has no opinion or are too afraid to stand up for what they believe in.

[Raistlin]

Absolutely not. It is more productive to be objective, however. Neutrality and objectivity are not the same.

[Teek]

Absolutely not. It is more productive to be objective, however. Neutrality and objectivity are not the same.

Agreed. I tend to take a stance on any given subject, but you always have to remain dedicated to the facts.

For example, if I was that believer and went back and found absolutely no proof that there were any other nautiloids, I wouldn't claim that I was right for the sake of being right. Same goes with people who think that they are right no matter what; I think a person can take a stance and change their mind later if they are proven wrong.

Neutality is not necessarily bad, but to me it sounds like a sort of "moral agnosticism". Or replace moral with any word relevant. Sort of throwing up your hands and saying, "I don't know!"

It's why I don't agree with neutral countries in a world war. Give me a break.

[Lon611]

Thats what I thought. So isn't the SAT question kinda pointless?

i believe the WHOLE Sat is pointless.

the essay is just trying to see if ur can form a thought and put it into words. personally, i agree with you.

[ThroneofDravaris]

Hmm, I’m afraid that I’m going to have to remain neutral on the issue of neutrality.

Oh god, these are getting worse…

[XxSephirothxX]

If I can see both sides of an argument and don't have especially strong feelings one way or the other, I'll remain neutral on the topic. Sometimes looking at things in a black-or-white manner is stupid, and you'll be prone to ignore facts that are very relevant to the situation. However, when writing an essay (especially for the new SAT) or something of that nature, it's best to just choose the side you can argue for the best. You don't even need to believe it.

[Cloud No.9]

neutrality is far too much like apathy for me. and people who "don't know" do bloody well know. they just can't be bothered with it. there is a right and wrong in your head. there is not an i don't know. one argument will seem right to you, the other won't. there is of course ignorance and we can forgive that.

but you all need to stick to the facts with these things. being on one side with no backing to it is not the way to go.

[Mo-Nercy]

In my Extension History course, we're encouraged to remain neutral, unbiased and completely objective...to the best of our ability. The very first thing we tackled in the class was the fact that no historian is able to be completely objective, mainly due to the impact and influences of society, culture, religion etc.

That's the ticket to being successful in the course. Everytime a source is shoved under my face, I have to critically analyse, and find as many "what ifs". In that respect, it's an easy course because as I've already said, no historian can avoid being biased.

So no. There's no way to be neutral on a topic.

[nik0tine]

So now, one may ask the question "Does apathy constitute neutrality?"

[lordblazer]

to be neutral in a political debate means not to participate in a political debate.