When arguing about the validity of something and the opinion/argument is unpopular...

if I understand you correctly, I don't like what you are saying here.

;) naw, totally kidding.

I feel there are many reasons people don't using "I don't like it" as an argument, first and foremost, because it proves nothing. Maybe I am not reading your question right?
I DO agree that the "agree to disagree" should exist a LOT more these days. Feels like all the "more tolerance" thing isn't actually working. There's tons of stuff in life I PERSONALLY do not agree with, and voice my OPINION over it, but I do not force others to agree with my perspective, nor try to prove my way is the best way.

Unless it is a provable physics type of thing, there is nothing to prove someone's feelings right or wrong. That's a senseless argument.

THAT SAID, we should all be tolerant to allow others to think differently than us, and them allow us to, as long as no one is getting injured, and no laws are being broken. Just my take.

That's the phrase normal people and scientists, YES SCIENTISTS, avoid like the plague.
Even when it is the MOST appropriate.

YES EVEN SCIENTISTS.

PS. Toss in historians too.

This is a continuation of your "Do i have to go to prison if I really dont want to" thread isnt it?

I think this paragraph is the one that comes closest to explaining what your talking about in an intelligible way.

somebody disagrees with a certain law etc, and let's say they don't think its harmful or anything, but, because they don't like it or feel its not pleasant enough, they use it as an argument and put a full stop and say "I think this officially!", can it then be considered a valid argument, and can people, who if disagree, accept the answer and move on, without confronting that person - AND NOT BECAUSE, to confront, let alone physically, would be "illegal" or anything but rather because, WHY NOT? Or is that not the case?

It depends what this "free thinker" has decided is OK
If its having a spliff in his house , people can disagree , but accept it and move on
if its stalking the streets at night murdering prostitutes ... less so

> why don't either scientists/specialists OR indeed normal people, EVER use "Because I don't like it"

I'm long since out of the field but my academic training is as a research scientist. To scientists, facts are facts. The empirical data is supreme. Facts cannot be wished away, nor can new facts be wished into existence. A person might not like it that the Earth is 93 million miles away from the Sun, or that light moves at 300,000 kilometers per second, or that the freezing point of water is 0 Celsius. So what? That doesn't change those facts.

Now, there is certainly room for intuition, hunches, flashes of insight, et cetera in scientific reasoning. A joke among scientists is that the best ideas are found when in the three Bs -- the bed, the bathroom, and the bar. Ideas can certainly "feel right" or "feel wrong." But the test of an idea is whether it accords with empirical data. (Actually, the test is whether the idea's opposite can be shown to be false by the data.) Once that test is applied, how one feels about an idea does not matter.

No scientist is perfectly rational, and it is possible for personal feelings to influence ones reasoning. When doing the research for my master's thesis, I found that my results contradicted a theory which a Stanford professor had come up with. I also found that my research was not the first time this had happened. The man's idea had validity, but he was claiming that the range of situations where it was applicable was far greater than it actually was. He was the sort who other scientists sarcastically refer to as The Great Man With A Theory. But he was truly a great in the field, with a list of publications a mile long, a full professor at one of the world's top universities. Because of the power of his reputation, the fact that he was overdoing it with this particular idea was not generally known -- those of us who worked directly on problems in the area saw it, but those who worked in other areas simply accepted that he was correct.

As part of the process for getting our degrees, I and my fellow students had to present our research at the Eastern Psychological Association conference that year, in Boston. So there I was, twenty-five years old, a terrified kid, standing in front of a crowd of other students and professors -- including Harvards, Yales, those types -- having to be ready to say, "Yeah, he's a leader in the field and I don't even have my master's yet. He's a titan and I'm a patzer, a schmuck. But he's wrong and I'm right." -- and then back it up. Scariest day of my life!

Your fellow countryman DOSTOEVSKY addresses this kind of an issue in his "NOTES from UNDERGROUND," where you meet a character who is never named but is called "THE UNDERGROUND MAN."

Notes from Underground - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notes_from_Underground

>>Notes from Underground (pre-reform Russian: Записки изъ подполья; post-reform Russian: Записки из подполья, Zapíski iz podpólʹya; also translated as Notes from the Underground or Letters from the Underworld) is an 1864 novella by Fyodor Dostoevsky, and is considered by many to be one of the first existentialist novels.

>>It presents itself as an excerpt from the rambling memoirs of a bitter, isolated, unnamed narrator (generally referred to by critics as the Underground Man), who is a retired civil servant living in St. Petersburg.

>>The first part of the story is told in monologue form through the Underground Man's diary, and attacks contemporary Russian philosophy, especially Nikolay Chernyshevsky's What Is to Be Done?.[2]

>>The second part of the book is called "Apropos of the Wet Snow" and describes certain events that appear to be destroying and sometimes renewing the underground man, who acts as a first person, unreliable narrator and anti-hero.[3] ...

Have you read it???

If not, you should check it out.

I think you'd like it.


>>He argues that removing pain and suffering in society takes away a man's freedom. He says that the cruelty of society makes human beings moan about pain only to spread their suffering to others.

>>He argues that despite humanity's attempt to create a utopia where everyone lives in harmony (symbolized by The Crystal Palace in Nikolai Chernyshevsky's What Is to Be Done?), one cannot avoid the simple fact that anyone, at any time, can decide to act in a way that might not be considered to be in their own self-interest; some will do so simply to validate their existence and to protest and confirm that they exist as individuals.

>>The idea of cultural and legislative systems relying on this rational egoism is what the protagonist despises. The Underground Man embraces this ideal in praxis, and seems to blame it for his current state of unhappiness.[6]

Needless to say, we also seem to have LOTS of these "UNDERGROUND TYPES" living here in the USA today, due to the way they also appear to share the same views of the UNDERGROUND MAN who essentially also thinks that:

" STUPIDITY preserves INDIVIDUALITY. "

An example of this is knowing you shouldn't eat a NICE YUMMY ICE CREAM SUNDAE because it will result in being OVERWEIGHT, but you decide to be IRRATIONAL rather than LOGICAL about it and eat it anyway.

And it's also a STUPID thing to do if you're already OBESE and have HEALTH ISSUES, but you still CHOSE to do it anyhow (the same way as we also have those in the US who REFUSE to get VACCINATED -- even with the DELTA STRAIN from INDIA SPREADING now like a WILDFIRE that rages in a FOREST).

🌲🌲🌲🌲🌲🌲🌲
🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🌳🍁🍂
🚒👨‍🚒👩‍🚒