NationStates Jolt Archive

i see this idea pop up from time to time - the idea that merely calling something your opinion means that it is beyond dispute. it is often used as a means of defense when someone's opinion is just factually incorrect or wildly implausible. where the hell does this come from and why would anyone think that it works outside of very limited contexts?

is it because people are generalizing from those very limited contexts ("this cake is delicious." "no it isn't.") to the rest of the world and our discourse about it?

is it because while the statement "the earth is flat" is false, the statement "in my opinion, the earth is flat" can technically be true (because it is a claim about what your opinion is, rather than about the geometry of the earth)?

can i blame it on the liberal media?

I would say it's used more to avoid conflict than to end it.

i see this idea pop up from time to time - the idea that merely calling something your opinion means that it is beyond dispute. it is often used as a means of defense when someone's opinion is just factually incorrect or wildly implausible. where the hell does this come from and why would anyone think that it works outside of very limited contexts?

is it because people are generalizing from those very limited contexts ("this cake is delicious." "no it isn't.") to the rest of the world and our discourse about it?

is it because while the statement "the earth is flat" is false, the statement "in my opinion, the earth is flat" can technically be true (because it is a claim about what your opinion is, rather than about the geometry of the earth)?

can i blame it on the liberal media?

You don't have an opinion! I don't allow you too! Opinions are opinions, facts are facts, sometimes opinions are fact.

I would say it's used more to avoid conflict than to end it.

but why would it avoid conflict? unless we also accept the "well, it's just my opinion" defense ourselves, it seems likely that the conflict will actually get worse when somebody uses it. after all, now they aren't just wrong about whatever they were talking about before. now they are wrong about the very nature of facts themselves.

It is probably very often because of a lack of arguments. Also, we are dumb.

You don't have an opinion! I don't allow you too! Opinions are opinions, facts are facts, sometimes opinions are fact.

Soldier ! When i want your opinion, i'll tell you what it is !


Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one, and most of them stink. ;)

Opinions, like anuses, are ubiquitous and usually smelly.

but why would it avoid conflict? unless we also accept the "well, it's just my opinion" defense ourselves, it seems likely that the conflict will actually get worse when somebody uses it. after all, now they aren't just wrong about whatever they were talking about before. now they are wrong about the very nature of facts themselves.

Most people are very set in their ways, and changing their minds takes a long, long time. When we argue with them, we'd like to think that we're winning them over with our brilliant logic, but for the most part their minds are already closed. Rather than argue, they will just meekly say that as a way of trying to get you to stop.

Soldier ! When i want your opinion, i'll tell you what it is !


Opinions are like arseholes, everybody has one, and most of them stink. ;)

IS THAT A TEAR IN YOUR EYE, PRIVATE? DO YOU WANT YOUR MOMMY?!? ARE YOU GOING TO CRY?!? [/R. Lee Ermey]

sometimes opinions are fact.

That's actually only true when talking about my opinion.

o·pin·ion (-pnyn)
n.
1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proofAn opinion is a subjective matter. So, by declaring something to be your opinion (in this sense), you essentially state that it is a bunch of meaningless twaddle as opposed to a factual argument. Hence, naturally, it is beyond dispute if the holder of the opinion so decides - but it is also meaningless. Point this out; "Oh, but I meant to discuss it as a matter of fact, not opinion.", or "Very well, but it is still factually incorrect." (note: this, quite naturally, is poor social conduct. in my opinion :p, you shouldn't give a crap about this unless neccessary)

can i blame it on the liberal media?In your opinion, I suppose.

An opinion is a subjective matter.

only in the sense that it takes place inside a subject's head.

So, by declaring something to be your opinion (in this sense), you essentially state that it is a bunch of meaningless twaddle as opposed to a factual argument. Hence, naturally, it is beyond dispute if the holder of the opinion so decides - but it is also meaningless. Point this out; "Oh, but I meant to discuss it as a matter of fact, not opinion.", or "Very well, but it is still factually incorrect."

i just don't see the distinction. opinions about factual matters are just claims of belief about factual matters. and since they are factual matters, then just calling it an opinion doesn't shield it from the fact of the matter. for example, if the opinion regards the shape of the earth, then it just is a factual question on which people may hold either a correct or incorrect opinion. if their opinion about it doesn't map onto reality, then their opinion is wrong, full stop.

That's actually only true when talking about my opinion.

That's your opinion ;)

Also I almost wrote opium instead of opinion. How strange...

can i blame it on the liberal media?

No, but you can blame it on the pop-psychobabble, and the neurotic focus on building up self-esteem that developed in the United States, and the western world in general, in the late seventies, and has continued unabated until recently. For some reason or another, we've decided we want to give everyone a method for their own personal validation, and somehow, being wrong has become a way in which a person might become less valid. This attitude is inculcated in us from an early age.

An example: In third grade, there was a girl who firmly believed that unicorns existed, or, at least, that they had at one point in time. Her evidence was those infernal Anne-whateverhernamewas school supplies for girls decorated with dolphins, unicorns and fanciful neon colors. I called her out on it, I told her that unicorns didn't exist, and I challenged her to find a reference to their actual existence besides those damn school supplies. I even directed her to the shelf of Zoobooks, (my class had the full set) and asked her if she could find a single one on Unicorns. She broke down in tears, and ran to the teacher and told the teacher that I was teasing her.

Even after I'd explained my case to the teacher, as well as a third grader with a mild speech impediment could, I was chastised, and later, my mom got a phone call from the school about my behavior. Simply because I told a girl her perception of reality was wrong, I was somehow a horrible human being. At least my mom understood, and actually commended me on putting up with shit.

In fields where we can prove stuff beyond a reasonable doubt, we just need to call people out when they're wrong, at every age, I might add. I daresay, that this is why this crap about evolution/creationism persists in the US. We also need to insist that there are delineated realms in which stuff belongs.

But, hey, that's too fucking harsh...we might hurt someone's feelings.

No, but you can blame it on the pop-psychobabble, and the neurotic focus on building up self-esteem that developed in the United States, and the western world in general, in the late seventies, and has continued unabated until recently.

so the right to your opinion was not widely claimed in the 1960s?

only in the sense that it takes place inside a subject's head.Depends on the meaning; "opinion" has several, of which the one I wrote matches the one implied by "Well, I am entitled to my opinion" and similar statements. For the meaning implied by "informed opinion" and similar wordings, the case would be different.

i just don't see the distinction. opinions about factual matters are just claims of belief about factual matters. and since they are factual matters, then just calling it an opinion doesn't shield it from the fact of the matter. for example, if the opinion regards the shape of the earth, then it just is a factual question on which people may hold either a correct or incorrect opinion. if their opinion about it doesn't map onto reality, then their opinion is wrong, full stop.There is "belief" based on evidence and "belief" regardless of evidence (faith); what I am saying is that the latter (your feelings on the subject) is subjective and outside the realm of reason - it ignores reality, and as such doesn't make for reasonable discussion.

EDIT: In other words, when someone clings to an opinion because they have "the right" to it, they are believing what they believe not based on the facts (the rational thing to do), but based on what they feel like believing - which is inherently irrational "la la la!" behavior.
EDIT2: In so doing, they remove their stance from the realm of reason, making reasonable discussion impossible, because no longer does whether or not you are right matter - what matters is whether or not you manage to appease them.

Common sense Opinions can be broken down into individualistic and naturalistic opinions.
Individualistic opinions are often what a person thinks without referring to any evidence or expert advice.
Naturalistic opinions are often shared by whole communities, such as a God exists, or if you drink lots of water you'l be okay, and are typically backed by media messages from celebrities or other dubious sources.
So clearly these common sense opinions often have fundamental flaws, but occaisionally they are a useful. To build a better opinion involves using evidence from previous research and aim for an objective analysis of your results if you chose to use primary methods of research.

In short Common sense opinions are often wrong because they cannot be backed by any substantial evidence.

There is "belief" based on evidence and "belief" regardless of evidence (faith); what I am saying is that the latter (your feelings on the subject) is subjective and outside the realm of reason - it ignores reality, and as such doesn't make for reasonable discussion.

EDIT: In other words, when someone clings to an opinion because they have "the right" to it, they are believing what they believe not based on the facts (the rational thing to do), but based on what they feel like believing - which is inherently irrational "la la la!" behavior.
EDIT2: In so doing, they remove their stance from the realm of reason, making reasonable discussion impossible, because no longer does whether or not you are right matter - what matters is whether or not you manage to appease them.

oh, indeed. it just seems so flat out insane that i have a hard time believing that people say it in all seriousness. frankly, when someone makes reasonable discussion impossible, it seems to me that the proper response is to just mock them and then marginalize them. but too often in our culture it seems like we just sort of let it go.

my line about the 'liberal media' is related to this point, though they hit it from the other end. the traditional media frequently doesn't even require people to fall back to the 'right to their opinion', but stakes out that ground for everyone preemptively. its all "he said/he said, and that's all there is to be said" far too often.

i see this idea pop up from time to time - the idea that merely calling something your opinion means that it is beyond dispute. it is often used as a means of defense when someone's opinion is just factually incorrect or wildly implausible. where the hell does this come from and why would anyone think that it works outside of very limited contexts?

is it because people are generalizing from those very limited contexts ("this cake is delicious." "no it isn't.") to the rest of the world and our discourse about it?

is it because while the statement "the earth is flat" is false, the statement "in my opinion, the earth is flat" can technically be true (because it is a claim about what your opinion is, rather than about the geometry of the earth)?

can i blame it on the liberal media?

Sure, if you want to... I blame the liberal media for your lack of capitalization. ;)

The problem is, this goes both ways. Not only do people try to defend facts as opinions, too often we see people who believe in an opinion so strongly they can no longer differentiate between it and a fact.

It's almost as if (and my ex had this problem) they ponder over their opinion at length, present it, and then when you disgaree they simply assume that you must not h ave spent enough time thinking about it, or that you're missing some crucial fact, or that you simply don't understand because, surely, a reasonable person would come to the very same conclusion they did, so if you still disagree...

It's already been pointed out. The heart of the matter is that if you add "in my opinion" and claim that adding that means your opinion is not subject to debate, then you're admitting it's not the result of reason, that it's not rational. Which is fine, though I don't see why anyone would think that stating something you wish for people to view as credible and then when challenged stating that same thing isn't rational would be productive at all.

Me: "In my opinion, Hillary wouldn't have won Ohio if I hadn't worn shoes that day."
Someone else: "Um, Eric, that's ridiculous."
Me: "I said 'in my opinion', why are you trying to steal my right to have an opinion?"
SE: "Because your opinion is nonsense. You may hold it and I may point out that it's nonsense. Why would the coverings of your feet affect the outcome of the Ohio vote?"
Me: "You deny me my rights, you fascist."

I fail to see what is productive in adding "in my opinion" and thinking it makes you above reproach. If you're on a debate forum, and your opinion can be shown to be invalid by showing it is contrary to the evidence, then it will be. Otherwise, every nutter here could just add "in my opinion" and let their nonsense fly.

In your opinion

/thread

It's already been pointed out. The heart of the matter is that if you add "in my opinion" and claim that adding that means your opinion is not subject to debate, then you're admitting it's not the result of reason, that it's not rational. Which is fine, though I don't see why anyone would think that stating something you wish for people to view as credible and then when challenged stating that same thing isn't rational would be productive at all.

Me: "In my opinion, Hillary wouldn't have won Ohio if I hadn't worn shoes that day."
Someone else: "Um, Eric, that's ridiculous."
Me: "I said 'in my opinion', why are you trying to steal my right to have an opinion?"
SE: "Because your opinion is nonsense. You may hold it and I may point out that it's nonsense. Why would the coverings of your feet affect the outcome of the Ohio vote?"
Me: "You deny me my rights, you fascist."

I fail to see what is productive in adding "in my opinion" and thinking it makes you above reproach. If you're on a debate forum, and your opinion can be shown to be invalid by showing it is contrary to the evidence, then it will be. Otherwise, every nutter here could just add "in my opinion" and let their nonsense fly.

In your opinion

ooh, an article on the subject
http://articles.wallstraits.net/articles/1376

Does your right to your opinion oblige me to let you keep it?

This is closest to what I think most mean when they claim a right to their opinion. They do so at just that point in an argument when they would otherwise be forced to admit error and change their position. And this is also the weakest possible interpretation of the right and thus most likely to pass the test.

Yet, it is still too strong. We have no duty to let others keep their opinions. On the contrary, we often have a duty to try to change them. Take an obvious example. You are about to cross the street with a friend. A car is coming yet your friend still takes a stride into the road. Knowing that she is not suicidal, you infer that she is of the opinion that no cars are coming. Are you obliged to let her keep this opinion?

I say no. You ought to take every reasonable measure to change her opinion, perhaps by drawing her attention to the oncoming car, saying something like, "Look out, a car is coming." By so doing, you have not violated her rights. Indeed, she will probably thank you. On matters like whether or not a car is about to crush them, everybody is interested in believing the truth; they will take the correction of their errors as a favor. The same goes for any other topic. If someone is interested in believing the truth, then she will not take the presentation of contrary evidence and argument as some kind of injury.

It's just that, on some topics, many people are not interested in believing the truth. They might prefer it if their opinion turns out to be true-- that would be the icing on the cake-- but truth is not too important.

seems about right, though i would make more of the disinterest in truth. it seems like a fundamental failing to go around believing in anything because you just sorta feel like it.

I find it troubling that the author of this tirade phrases it thusly: "Does your right to your opinion oblige me to let you keep it?"

LET someone keep their opinion? Wow. Makes me wonder who this person thinks he or she is to think they can decide what to LET people think.

You're entitled to your opinion, even it's stupid as fuck, and I am entitled to mock the shit out of it for being so. So, as long as you accept these terms, then go on and think that creation is true. :D

I find it troubling that the author of this tirade phrases it thusly: "Does your right to your opinion oblige me to let you keep it?"

LET someone keep their opinion? Wow. Makes me wonder who this person thinks he or she is to think they can decide what to LET people think.

*takes Neo B's opinions*

there is nothing troubling about that. if your opinion is wrong and stupid and could get you or others hurt, we have an obligation to not just let you keep it. i have a hard time believing you could think otherwise.

That sort of argument could be used to justify some pretty horrific things, especially if we are indeed discussing matters of opinion.

"Your opinion that the Government isn't doing well can be harmful to yourselves and others. We have an obligation, in protecting the State, to not allow you to keep such an opinion..."

*takes Neo B's opinions*

*starts searching self* dammit... where did I leave those opinions... *looks suspiciously at Dyakovo...*

I find it troubling that the author of this tirade phrases it thusly: "Does your right to your opinion oblige me to let you keep it?"

LET someone keep their opinion? Wow. Makes me wonder who this person thinks he or she is to think they can decide what to LET people think.

there is nothing troubling about that. if your opinion is wrong and stupid and could get you or others hurt, we have an obligation to not just let you keep it. i have a hard time believing you could think otherwise.

there is nothing troubling about that. if your opinion is wrong and stupid and could get you or others hurt, we have an obligation to not just let you keep it. i have a hard time believing you could think otherwise.

That sounds odd.
So if an opinion doesn't sound right it should be removed?
No that doesn't sound right at all.
I know freedom of speach get's thrown around alot, but what about freedom of thought, it seems what you're saying goes against forming your own opinions.
And who would or should judge if another opinion is stupid or 'wrong'?

You're entitled to hold any opinion you would like. You are not entitled to have your opinion, whatever it is, be correct.

You are also not excused from mockery should your opinion be dumb. You're allowed to spout whatever opinion you like, but we're entitled to our refutations.

And who would or should judge if another opinion is stupid or 'wrong'?

Two words: Lunatic Goofballs!:D

That sounds odd.
So if an opinion doesn't sound right it should be removed?

define 'removed'

I know freedom of speach get's thrown around alot, but what about freedom of thought, it seems what you're saying goes against forming your own opinions.

we all have a duty to strive for truth, and to help others strive for it as well - at least on issues where truth matters.

And who would or should judge if another opinion is stupid or 'wrong'?

evidence and reason. same way we decide everything. to use orwell's formulation, "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

That sort of argument could be used to justify some pretty horrific things, especially if we are indeed discussing matters of opinion.

"Your opinion that the Government isn't doing well can be harmful to yourselves and others. We have an obligation, in protecting the State, to not allow you to keep such an opinion..."

except that it can't. to use it to claim justification for 'some pretty horrific things', you would need to further argue that, for example, the state is the arbitrator of truth, that violent means are obligatory, etc. none of that follows at all.

define 'removed'

we all have a duty to strive for truth, and to help others strive for it as well - at least on issues where truth matters.

evidence and reason. same way we decide everything. to use orwell's formulation, "Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."

When i say removed i mean, supressed altogether.

And what is the definition of truth we are trying to find?

Not all people act on reason alone, or purely on evidence. Trust and hope is what alot of people use as well.
And what happens if Orwell's formulation does not work?
As in what if someone has never heard of two+two=Four, does this mean they aren't entitled to freedom of their own?

except that it can't. to use it to claim justification for 'some pretty horrific things', you would need to further argue that, for example, the state is the arbitrator of truth, that violent means are obligatory, etc. none of that follows at all.

Why not? If you can cast yourself as an arbiter of what opinions are acceptable and what aren't, why NOT the state, which is much better armed than you are...

Why not? If you can cast yourself as an arbiter of what opinions are acceptable and what aren't, why NOT the state, which is much better armed than you are...

Because one is a violation of freedom of speech. I'm not required as a private citizen to respect your freedom of speech. For example, if you work for me, I very well can say, no one may discuss religion, nor politics, etc., at work. Entirly legal. The government must honor your freedom of religion. As an employer, I have no such requirement. As an employer I have no such obligation. I simply can't use your religion as a basis for discrimination. Freedom of speech is the same.

For example, if you, as an employee of Apple, are on television saying Apple sucks, I most certainly can fire you.

Because one is a violation of freedom of speech. I'm not required as a private citizen to respect your freedom of speech. For example, if you work for me, I very well can say, no one may discuss religion, nor politics, etc., at work. Entirly legal. The government must honor your freedom of religion. As an employer, I have no such requirement. As an employer I have no such obligation. I simply can't use your religion as a basis for discrimination. Freedom of speech is the same.

For example, if you, as an employee of Apple, are on television saying Apple sucks, I most certainly can fire you.

So why do your freedoms become cut-off at work?
How is being employed mean that you come under different guidelines of what is allowed and what isn't?

Why as an employee of Apple can you lose your job if you say Apple sucks? I mean what if you're taped without prior knowledge saying Apple sucks, does your opinion not count?

so the right to your opinion was not widely claimed in the 1960s?

Not to the degree that it is now, and not in the fields in which it is now, either.

Because one is a violation of freedom of speech. I'm not required as a private citizen to respect your freedom of speech. For example, if you work for me, I very well can say, no one may discuss religion, nor politics, etc., at work. Entirly legal. The government must honor your freedom of religion. As an employer, I have no such requirement. As an employer I have no such obligation. I simply can't use your religion as a basis for discrimination. Freedom of speech is the same.

For example, if you, as an employee of Apple, are on television saying Apple sucks, I most certainly can fire you.

All true, but your example is about circumstances surrounding the EXPRESSION of an opinion, wheras what I'm taking exception to is FS' assertion that somehow it's apropriate for ANYONE to presume to have the authority to quantitatively judge whether or not your opinions are acceptable or are in need of change.

So why do your freedoms become cut-off at work?
How is being employed mean that you come under different guidelines of what is allowed and what isn't?

Why as an employee of Apple can you lose your job if you say Apple sucks? I mean what if you're taped without prior knowledge saying Apple sucks, does your opinion not count?
because it reflects badly on Apple, that even their employees don't like their products.

It doesn't matter - Apple is just protecting themselves from bad press. The constitution only prohibits congress from limiting speech; it doesn't refer to limits on speech coming from private entities at all.

Two words: Lunatic Goofballs!:D

I reward with tacos and punish with scrotum-seeking attack weasels.

The pies are random. *nod*

All true, but your example is about circumstances surrounding the EXPRESSION of an opinion, wheras what I'm taking exception to is FS' assertion that somehow it's apropriate for ANYONE to presume to have the authority to quantitatively judge whether or not your opinions are acceptable or are in need of change.

The difference is in the application of force. I don't think he's advocating that someone has the ability to forcibly change the opinion, but rather that stupid opinions be challenged and shown to be stupid at every opportunity. Doing such a thing isn't force. He's arguing against the immunity from criticism that saying "Well, it's my opinion" is supposed to evoke.

because it reflects badly on Apple, that even their employees don't like their products.

It doesn't matter - Apple is just protecting themselves from bad press. The constitution only prohibits congress from limiting speech; it doesn't refer to limits on speech coming from private entities at all.

But that doesn't stop it's employees from telling their family and other people how poor their product may be, so why bother threatening them with job-loss when they can say bad things about it anyway?

Can't the constitution be amended to allow freedom of speech and expression at work? It would give a moral boost to workers everywhere.

When i say removed i mean, supressed altogether.

only by the weight of evidence and mockery and marginalizing.

And what is the definition of truth we are trying to find?

some sort of correspondence theory (even if it is only a pragmatic account), given that any theory of truth that divorces the concept from the reality of the universe either allows for contradictions or destroys all possibility of knowledge and progress.

Not all people act on reason alone, or purely on evidence. Trust and hope is what alot of people use as well.

is/ought

And what happens if Orwell's formulation does not work?
As in what if someone has never heard of two+two=Four, does this mean they aren't entitled to freedom of their own?

i think you misunderstand what orwell was getting at. the point is that truth is independent, not something declared by authorities.

The difference is in the application of force. I don't think he's advocating that someone has the ability to forcibly change the opinion, but rather that stupid opinions be challenged and shown to be stupid at every opportunity. Doing such a thing isn't force. He's arguing against the immunity from criticism that saying "Well, it's my opinion" is supposed to evoke.

I'm not saying that an opinion should be magically immune to disagreement.

What I'm taking issue with is the mentality that anyone can evaluate a subjective opinion in non-subjective terms like 'wrong' or 'stupid'. If an opinion is truly subjective then it cannot be thusly evaluated. It can only be agreed with or disagreed with.

Free Soviets:only by the weight of evidence and mockery and marginalizing.
okay

some sort of correspondence theory (even if it is only a pragmatic account), given that any theory of truth that divorces the concept from the reality of the universe either allows for contradictions or destroys all possibility of knowledge and progress.
How can you have a truth that is divorced from reality? Am i reading this the wrong way?

is/ought
I could say the same about opinions based on evidence and reason.

i think you misunderstand what orwell was getting at. the point is that truth is independent, not something declared by authorities.
Truth is independant, so it's in the hands of those who can shout the loudest then?

I'm not saying that an opinion should be magically immune to disagreement.

What I'm taking issue with is the mentality that anyone can evaluate a subjective opinion in non-subjective terms like 'wrong' or 'stupid'. If an opinion is truly subjective then it cannot be thusly evaluated. It can only be agreed with or disagreed with.
That requires differentiating between opinions like "no cars will hit me" and "rabbits are cute." I might think you're a soulless husk masquerading as a human being for not thinking rabbits are cute, but that will just be a difference of preferences. But the opinion that cars wont hit you is different. I think, and I'm not looking at his OP, but I think he made that distinction on the offset.

Why not? If you can cast yourself as an arbiter of what opinions are acceptable and what aren't, why NOT the state, which is much better armed than you are...

is it really so hard to grasp that there is a world outside your head, and that it is the arbitrator of questions of fact?

is it really so hard to grasp that there is a world outside your head, and that it is the arbitrator of questions of fact?

We're not talking about fact. We're talking about opinion.

I'm not saying that an opinion should be magically immune to disagreement.

What I'm taking issue with is the mentality that anyone can evaluate a subjective opinion in non-subjective terms like 'wrong' or 'stupid'. If an opinion is truly subjective then it cannot be thusly evaluated. It can only be agreed with or disagreed with.

An opinion is subjective but can be based on objective facts. For example, let's say we both come across a red rose, and upon staring at it I pronounce "I think this flower is yellow."

I have not stated a fact, but stated an opinion. As such my opinion can not be wrong, if uttered truthfully. I have not said "this is a yellow flower", I have said "I think this flower is yellow". Thus my statement is not about what the flower is but what I believe it to be. So to state that my opinion "I think the flower is yellow" is wrong is to say that I don't believe the flower to be yellow, which is untrue, I most certainly do, as long as I truly believe that. An opinion can never be wrong.

However, you can say that the objective facts upon which I form my subjective opinion are wrong. It is true I believe the flower to be yellow, this is subjective, but the color of the flower is objective, and I have misjudged an objective fact upon which I have formed my opinion.

Is the flower being yellow my opinion? Yes

is it a wrong opinion? An opinion can't be wrong, as it's not a thing that can be right or wrong.

is my opinion based on factually incorrect information? Yes.

And with that being said, you're being far too nitpicky in trying to argue semantics by yelling about how we can't judge opinions. Sure, we can't, but we can judge an opinion holder as having made wrong or misguided factual determinations in reaching that opinion.

And really that's the same thing in the end.

How can you have a truth that is divorced from reality? Am i reading this the wrong way?

i was referring to any of the social constructivist theories of truth, or some of the sillier coherence ones.

I could say the same about opinions based on evidence and reason.

you could. but it wouldn't make much sense. the claim would then be that we should not base our beliefs on evidence and reason. not exactly a winning survival strategy.

Truth is independant, so it's in the hands of those who can shout the loudest then?

no

We're not talking about fact. We're talking about opinion.

"in my opinion, the world is flat"

An opinion is subjective but can be based on objective facts. For example, let's say we both come across a red rose, and upon staring at it I pronounce "I think this flower is yellow."

I have not stated a fact, but stated an opinion. As such my opinion can not be wrong, if uttered truthfully. I have not said "this is a yellow flower", I have said "I think this flower is yellow". Thus my statement is not about what the flower is but what I believe it to be. So to state that my opinion "I think the flower is yellow" is wrong is to say that I don't believe the flower to be yellow, which is untrue, I most certainly do, as long as I truly believe that. An opinion can never be wrong.

However, you can say that the objective facts upon which I form my subjective opinion are wrong. It is true I believe the flower to be yellow, this is subjective, but the color of the flower is objective, and I have misjudged an objective fact upon which I have formed my opinion.

Is the flower being yellow my opinion? Yes

is it a wrong opinion? An opinion can't be wrong, as it's not a thing that can be right or wrong.

is my opinion based on factually incorrect information? Yes.

And with that being said, you're being far too nitpicky in trying to argue semantics by yelling about how we can't judge opinions. Sure, we can't, but we can judge an opinion holder as having made wrong or misguided factual determinations in reaching that opinion.

And really that's the same thing in the end.
You just wanted to pick on color blind people, didn't you? Oh sure, it's always so easy to pick on the color blind..."Oh look, their clothes don't match, they don't know what wire to cut to defuse a bomb...haha, you suck!" You bastards...this is why I go and adjust the color on display tvs to look right to me. Ha! Let your brains try and figure out whats wrong with what they're seeing then!!!


sorry, I'll go now...

And with that being said, you're being far too nitpicky in trying to argue semantics by yelling about how we can't judge opinions. Sure, we can't, but we can judge an opinion holder as having made wrong or misguided factual determinations in reaching that opinion.

And really that's the same thing in the end.

especially since i already noted the distinction in the op anyways.

especially since i already noted the distinction in the op anyways.

It's so perfect that NB is arguing this. In another thread he's arguing that asking for sources is a copout. Yes, because when people make statements about things that require evidence, for example how a state will vote or how a government program works, asking them to show that, in fact, it does work that way is a copout.

It's truly unfair how we try to analyze the validity of statements using evidence and reason. Adding evidence and reason so clearly stacks the decks against those who don't have those things on their side.

It would be much better if we all just just argued like Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck. Cuz, boy, wouldn't that be fun and educational? And then those poor creationists, ID'ers, young earthers, racists, bigots conspiracy theorists and various others who have to either cherry pick evidence or ignore it altogether wouldn't be so disadvantaged on these boards.

It's so perfect that NB is arguing this. In another thread he's arguing that asking for sources is a copout. Yes, because when people make statements about things that require evidence, for example how a state will vote or how a government program works, asking them to show that, in fact, it does work that way is a copout.

It's truly unfair how we try to analyze the validity of statements using evidence and reason. Adding evidence and reason so clearly stacks the decks against those who don't have those things on their side.

It would be much better if we all just just argued like Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck. Cuz, boy, wouldn't that be fun and educational? And then those poor creationists, ID'ers, young earthers, racists, bigots conspiracy theorists and various others who have to either cherry pick evidence or ignore it altogether wouldn't be so disadvantaged on these boards.

despite any fucking bias in reality itself, it is clearly duck season.

despite any fucking bias in reality itself, it is clearly duck season.

He doesn't have to shoot you now, he can wait until he gets home.

i was referring to any of the social constructivist theories of truth, or some of the sillier coherence ones.

you could. but it wouldn't make much sense. the claim would then be that we should not base our beliefs on evidence and reason. not exactly a winning survival strategy.


Not really. You're assuming the ought/is gap is a valid reason to deny evidence, and while it's true in some cases, this cannot be the case all the time.
Because humans inevitably have to make a judgement on what is, and what should be, to say this is a fallacy doesn't really get around the real idea that people do make inferences of trust in other people, in the same way they make inferences that a certain piece of evidence is trustworthy.

Thus evidence is another way of showing your point of view, and as some people's point of view is based on false premises this shows evidence isn't the only way you can resolve issues.
So the ought/is fallacy is really aiming for an ideal which can't really happen with human society.

no
and would you care to explain why if Truth is independant it somehow has the ability to be sold off to the highest bidder?

He doesn't have to shoot you now, he can wait until he gets home.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5314731674851192994&q=Rabbit+Seasoning&total=1424&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Not really. You're assuming the ought/is gap is a valid reason to deny evidence, and while it's true in some cases, this cannot be the case all the time.
Because humans inevitably have to make a judgement on what is, and what should be, to say this is a fallacy doesn't really get around the real idea that people do make inferences of trust in other people, in the same way they make inferences that a certain piece of evidence is trustworthy.

Thus evidence is another way of showing your point of view, and as some people's point of view is based on false premises this shows evidence isn't the only way you can resolve issues.
So the ought/is fallacy is really aiming for an ideal which can't really happen with human society.

wait, what?

when i said is/ought, i was saying that the fact that people don't always make judgments based on evidence and reason doesn't actually tell us anything about whether they shouldn't. i'm not sure what you are saying here.

and would you care to explain why if Truth is independant it somehow has the ability to be sold off to the highest bidder?

it doesn't.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, regardless of how infuriating it makes us, how factually incorrect it is, etc. The Flat Earth theory can be proven somewhat, but has about as much basis as Creationism/ID.

The Flat Earth theory can be proven somewhat, but has about as much basis as Creationism/ID.

what does this even mean?

what does this even mean?Maybe that at a very small scale (relative to it's size), the earth is by approximation flat?

wait, what?

when i said is/ought, i was saying that the fact that people don't always make judgments based on evidence and reason doesn't actually tell us anything about whether they shouldn't. i'm not sure what you are saying here.

it doesn't.

okay.
I suppose i was arguing for your point. as in taking out the ought/is gap.
"It doesn't", well i suppose two word answers are one way to discuss things, might take a while though.

"It doesn't", well i suppose two word answers are one way to discuss things, might take a while though.

i was rejecting the premise of your question. the independence of truth means that it cannot be 'sold off to the highest bidder' or be determined by who 'can shout the loudest' or by who has the most guns or by a vote.

Some people don't like justifying their beliefs. This is their way to shut off the conversation.

What they mean, in effect, is "stop bothering me."

A few years ago I saw a funny but wise keychain that stated the following: Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, but you´re abusing the privilege.
I think this applies here.

A few years ago I saw a funny but wise keychain that stated the following: Everyone is entitled to his/her own opinion, but you´re abusing the privilege.
I think this applies here.

As well as in the election mega-thread - specifically to CH.

Everyone is entitled to have an opinion. Everyone is entitled to tell others about their opinion. In fact, everyone is even entitled to tell others about their opinion and pass it as fact.

Does that mean their opinion meshes with reality? Ha ha ha. No. When I hear people say, "I am entitled to my opinion," I take it to mean, "There is no way you will ever convince me of what you think and I'd rather avoid a debate than see you try." It's quite decent of them, actually; then no one has to waste their breath arguing.

I only use the 'my opinion' defense when attempting to avoid insulting someone or crushing their self esteem.
Something like the following:

Professor of Literature: So you're saying my career is essentially worthless except for the joy it brings me?
Me: Yes.
Professor of Literature: ...
Me: But that's only my opinion anyway.

Some people don't like justifying their beliefs. This is their way to shut off the conversation.

What they mean, in effect, is "stop bothering me."

in that case, i vote we adopt a new way to express that sentiment.

in that case, i vote we adopt a new way to express that sentiment.

:upyours:

People seem to use that a lot. :p

in that case, i vote we adopt a new way to express that sentiment.
"Oh my, look at the time..."

in that case, i vote we adopt a new way to express that sentiment.

Well, there's always the "long, boring, repetitive argument with someone who won't see reason" option.

I take the charitable approach and assume that people who say "I am entitled to my opinion" are just trying to save my time. :)

But that doesn't stop it's employees from telling their family and other people how poor their product may be, so why bother threatening them with job-loss when they can say bad things about it anyway?
It's their rule; they can do what they want.
Can't the constitution be amended to allow freedom of speech and expression at work? It would give a moral boost to workers everywhere.
Aside from being an improper use of the constitution (the point of the constitution is to protect you from the government), that would be an infringement on freedom. Remember, all the rules your employer has that govern you are rules to which you consented.

i see this idea pop up from time to time - the idea that merely calling something your opinion means that it is beyond dispute. it is often used as a means of defense when someone's opinion is just factually incorrect or wildly implausible. where the hell does this come from and why would anyone think that it works outside of very limited contexts?

is it because people are generalizing from those very limited contexts ("this cake is delicious." "no it isn't.") to the rest of the world and our discourse about it?

is it because while the statement "the earth is flat" is false, the statement "in my opinion, the earth is flat" can technically be true (because it is a claim about what your opinion is, rather than about the geometry of the earth)?

can i blame it on the liberal media?

Yes, I hate it when people play the "it's my opinion card, therefore sacred and non-disputable". I was talking with one girl who said she hated "Dubai, because they're so rich but no one ever criticizes them while we (the US) get bombed because the rest of the world hates our freedoms and is jealous because of our wealth" The high level of ignorance disgusted me so much that I was about to come back with the overwhelming counter-evidence when she said "But that's just my opinion. I'm entitled to my opinion and I don't really feel like debating" I was extremely annoyed. Honestly, people who hide their unsupported stupid opinions behind the "it's just my opinion" wall annoy me. If your opinion is correct (which you should believe it is, if you believe it), then you should have no problem debating it.

She votes too.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5314731674851192994&q=Rabbit+Seasoning&total=1424&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
You're despicable!! :D