can you be completely neutral

[Ghost1986]

do you think its possible to be completely neutral on a subject?

personally i think you can be but i have met several people who say you cant be neutral. they claim that you must always have an opinion on any subject. but what if you dont know anything about a subject, do you still have to have a opinion? what about a subject you just have no interest in?

 

[transformers]

Sure, I'm neutral about what kind of shoes George Bush wears, because I don't give a crap. You have to actually care about something before you become biased.

actually, thinking more about it it's probably impossible to be totally neutral. your previous experiences and current emotional state would always influence it, even if only slightly.

 

[Jennywocky]

What is neutral?

You can be within ball-park of neutral, if you're capable of stepping back even from your own emotions on a particular topic and making the "best case" for every side you perceive... but no one is 100% neutral, we're all biased even just by our past. There are experiences we have and those we have not; there are personality traits we have and those we have not; hence, we cannot truly 'be everything," and so there is some inherent bias in everyone's viewpoint even if they try very hard and can give a generally unbiased view.

PS. Do you mean there are people who actually care about what Dubya's sock color is? *gasp*

 

[SEPKA]

I don't think you can. Even for something you are clueless about and have no relation to you, you cannot be neutral, you are at most apathetic: there are no facts to examine so there are no base for neutrality to happen. Even if you try to present all point of view, state all facts about it, there will be bias in your perception: you cannot see all the facts so you will have bias opinion. And then there are also randomness in our thought process, we might impose a pattern on data when other pattern or no pattern is the correct one. The only way we can be neutral is to memorize all fact, have a perfect perception and make no inference or opinion. Our imperfect perception and limited memory make it impossible.
Of course, maybe a being with large memory and perfect perception can be neutral, but even so it would not be desirable. To quote someone I forgot the name "An useful map is necessary imperfect".

 

[bananaphallus]

I don't think you can. Even for something you are clueless about and have no relation to you, you cannot be neutral, you are at most apathetic: there are no facts to examine so there are no base for neutrality to happen. Even if you try to present all point of view, state all facts about it, there will be bias in your perception: you cannot see all the facts so you will have bias opinion. And then there are also randomness in our thought process, we might impose a pattern on data when other pattern or no pattern is the correct one. The only way we can be neutral is to memorize all fact, have a perfect perception and make no inference or opinion. Our imperfect perception and limited memory make it impossible.
Of course, maybe a being with large memory and perfect perception can be neutral, but even so it would not be desirable. To quote someone I forgot the name "An useful map is necessary imperfect".

I think this is why journalists/the news can never be truly objective.

 

[Vrecknidj]

Adjective

neutral (comparative more neutral, superlative most neutral)
Positive
neutral

Comparative
more neutral

Superlative
most neutral

1. Not taking sides in a conflict such as war; nonaligned.
2. Favouring neither the supporting nor opposing viewpoint of a topic of debate; unbiased.
3. (grammar) Neither positive nor negative.
4. Neither beneficial nor harmful.
5. Having no sex; neuter.
6. Having no obvious colour; gray
7. (physics) Neither positive nor negative; possessing no charge or equivalent positive and negative charge such that there is no imbalance.
8. (chemistry) Having a pH of 7, neither acidic nor alkaline.

Since most of those don't apply to the sense being asserted here (so I assume), I'll just focus on variations of #1 and #2. I think that the main sense being asked about is #2. And, yeah, I think it's possible for some people to be neutral on some topics.

Noun

Singular
neutral

Plural
neutrals

neutral (plural neutrals)

1. A nonaligned state, or a member of such a state
2. A person who takes no side in a dispute
3. An individual or entity serving as an arbitrator or adjudicator (jargon / legal)
4. A neutral hue
5. The position of a set of gears in which power cannot be transmitted to the drive mechanism
6. An electrical terminal that is not electrified

Same here.

Dave

 

[Zero]

If "I don't care"=Neutral.

 

[Claverhouse]

It's easy to be neutral, even about something one cares about, if one applies the same standards to both sides.



Claverhouse

 

[SEPKA]

"I don't care" is not neutral because it is a preference of the state of disinterest without objective reason, and the lack of acknowledging the point of view of people in the state of interest.
Even if you tried to apply the same standard, there are limit to your ability. But a precise definition of standard would clarify this.
Perhap we can split the concept into "subjective neutral" (where you use method that are reliable to make you neutral) and "objective neutral" (where you are really neutral).

 

[walfin]

they claim that you must always have an opinion on any subject. but what if you dont know anything about a subject, do you still have to have a opinion? what about a subject you just have no interest in?

False dichotomy. Why can't you have a neutral opinion?

If you hold two contrary opinions at the same time - is that neutral?

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

You can't hold two contrary opinions at the same time.

I didn't really read this topic but I thought I'd just make a quick contribution.

Not taking sides in a controversy, dispute, disagreement, etc.; not inclining toward any party, view, etc.; impartial, unbiased.

 

[Aiss]

Neutral as in not having an opinion - yes. Neutral as in having a "neutral" opinion - no. We may aim for it, and come close, but it's impossible exactly because of out biased perception.

You can't hold two contrary opinions at the same time.

You can!

 

[Nicholas A. A. E.]

You can be in the process of considering two contrary opinions, or holding an opinion that can be considered moderate compared to two contrary extremes. But it's semantically impossible to actually hold two contrary opinions.

 

[komiyama-nahori]

I don't understand how you can have a neutral opinion if it does not mean "not caring" For example, if you were to be neutral in the issue of pro-life and pro-choice, wouldn't neutral be accepting both sides and allowing women to have abortions and allowing some other women to keep their babies if they want? And wouldn't that be a form of "not caring" because you really don't give a damn if one or the other happens, because you accept both?