Opinions: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Introduction to Philosophy / Factual Issues / Books » Opinions » Opinions

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Opinions

xzJoel
Bio-clump

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Location: New Jersey

Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 840

Posted 06/19/09 - 03:36 PM:	#11
dman1 wrote: Can something as subjective as opinion ever be wrong? Everyone has the ability to have an opinion. They can start any sentence, "In my opinion . . ." and it would be accurate. There is a point at which opinions are no longer statements of assumptions, but rather conclusions made on the basis of certain assumptions. Once you've entered the territory of conclusions, you cease being in opinion world. Many things are opinions, but people need to know where opinions end. Once they have moved from a pure opinion to a conclusion based on that opinion, their conclusion either correctly follows from their facts/opinions and is “right” or the conclusions do not follow from their facts/conclusion and are “wrong.” If I say, "In my opinion, 2+2=5", you might say, "Well golly, I guess you are just entitled to that opinion because opinions can’t be wrong." Unfortunately, rather than correcting me, you have made me think that I have a valid claim to something that is wrong. Assuming that I accept the rules of math and you accept the rules of math, there is a correct answer to the problem 2+2 and that answer isn't 5. There are concepts and rules at play in the world of math and a convention that mandates that 2+2=4. If my opinion is that 2+2=5, I am simply wrong within that convention. When someone says, "In my opinion", don't make the mistake of permitting them to say whatever tomfoolery they like. Call them out for when they are wrong. Say to them, if you accept a, b, and c, the conclusion you must reach is d, not 53. Don't let people delude themselves into believing that opinion protects them from error. A practical example is if someone says, "In my opinion, guns should be unregulated.” In such an instance, they are likely not asserting an opinion, but rather a conclusion upon reflection of their worldview and factual preconceptions. Challenge them. Demand their assumptions and working rules of argument. Let them defend their position with good reasoning and factual support. If they simply fall back on "In my opinion" call them out for being a disingenuous schmuck. The likelihood that they have as a core belief that guns should be unregulated is close to nil. They are simply hiding from the possibility that they could be wrong. P.S. This is a slightly edited version of an old (two weeks or so) post of mine. Please forgive the reposting, but I think it is relevant.
Make a joyous noise onto the lord... Not a good one, just a joyous one.

dman1
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 19, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 13

Posted 06/19/09 - 04:12 PM:	#12
So an opinion by itself cannot be wrong, but a conclusive opinion can? Edited by Incision on 06/19/09 - 11:17 PM. Reason: capitalization

xzJoel
Bio-clump

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 30, 2005
Location: New Jersey

Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 840

Posted 06/19/09 - 04:21 PM:	#13
dman1 wrote: so an opinion by itself cannot be wrong, but a conclusive opinion can? If an opinion is an assumption/premise, it cannot be wrong because that is your starting point. If you try to go somewhere from there, then you are making an argument. Argument can be fallacious, illogical, etc. If the conclusion of an argument is deemed an opinion, then yes, it can be wrong. A "conclusive opinion" almost sounds like an opinion that concludes the matter like saying "No." in response to the question, "Do you like it?".
Make a joyous noise onto the lord... Not a good one, just a joyous one.

dman1
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 19, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 13

Posted 06/19/09 - 05:57 PM:	#14
But how can something deemed as subjective be wrong? Opinions are inherently subjective. If someone deems something you say to be an opinion, how can it be wrong? Edited by Incision on 06/19/09 - 11:18 PM. Reason: capitalization

treysuttle
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2003
Location: Phoenix

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 213

Posted 06/19/09 - 06:05 PM:	#15
dman1, please define 'subjective' and 'objective'.

dman1
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 19, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 13

Posted 06/19/09 - 08:51 PM:	#16
Subjective is feelings. Objective is fact. Edited by Incision on 06/19/09 - 11:18 PM. Reason: capitalization

Postmodern Beatnik
I Just Work Here

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 2102

Posted 06/20/09 - 11:02 AM:	#17
treysuttle wrote: From my reading, in the context that dman1 is using it: 'Can opinions be right or wrong' is left extremely vague without defining his terms. You seem to have found it clear enough to respond, but fair enough. I certainly can't set your standards of vagueness for you. treysuttle wrote: If dman1 is asking something equivalent to what I am thinking about when I inquire whether opinions can be true or false, then I wouldn't accept that 'right' in that sense means the same as when one says 'if we are right to assume'. When one says "if we are right to assume," they mean "if that assumption is accurate (i.e. true). So what's the difference? treysuttle wrote: I would be completely ok with using the term 'right' in a political context such that it would be ok to say that 'I have a right to assume' and 'p has a right to x'....because 'right' in the technical sense (as related to rights, duties, blah blah) has presumably been defined and we understand that we are speaking in a political context (we have a frame of reference for understanding the non-technical uses of 'right' in the context. Having a right (i.e. a power or a liberty), of course, is much different than being right (i.e. correct/accurate). Political philosophy is also normative, and the rights posited within it are typically not too far removed from ethical concepts.
"An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination." --Voltaire "If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson

Postmodern Beatnik
I Just Work Here

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 2102

Posted 06/20/09 - 11:22 AM:	#18
xzJoel wrote: If an opinion is an assumption/premise, it cannot be wrong because that is your starting point. (1) All members with usernames beginning with "x" have terminal boneitis. (2) The member xzJoel has a username beginning with "x." (3) Therefore, the member xzJoel has terminal boneitis. Since (1) is an assumption, it cannot be wrong. And since the argument is clearly valid, and the only other premise of the argument is demonstrably true, it must be sound. Sorry to hear about your bones! But of course, assumptions can be wrong. Indeed, the very notion of indirect proof relies on that fact. We can stipulate things conditionally to see what follows from them, and in such a context it would be illegitimate to object to the premise being explored, but that says nothing about its actual truth. Good thing, too -- because I certainly wouldn't want to be able to give you a fictional disease as a side-effect of making an argument!
"An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination." --Voltaire "If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson

treysuttle
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 07, 2003
Location: Phoenix

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 213

Posted 06/20/09 - 11:24 AM:	#19
Yes, I found it clear enough to respond, after I noted what is a salient distinction for me between what one might be referring to in asking if 'opinions can be right'. Given, the post was in 'epistemology' section, nonetheless...but I have mentioned this, I have a bias towards a certain, perhaps overly 'scholastic' conception of doing philosophy. In no logic class would 'right' be acceptable as a substitute for 'true'. But, as you have mentioned and I conceded...different folks see it different, and as long as there is some assurance that we are talking about the same idea, we can move on. I can think (without reflecting much on it) of at least 2 different conceptions (excluding 'truth') in which one might discuss whether an 'opinion can be right'. But again...I think overall we are clear on this. I don't interpret 'have a right to assume p' in the same way that you do. I interpret right to assume as, given the context of the discussion, it is admissible that I assume p. The subtle point is 'we have a right' as opposed to 'p is right' or 'assume that p is right'. I generally take it that words with equivalent meanings can be substituted for one another....having a right to assume p....and assuming that p is right, is simply not semantically equivalent, as I see it. You may see it differently perhaps, but I don't think that difference is a conversation stopper for the issue the thread is intended to discuss. On the final comment, 'having a right' and 'being right' (in the sense of substituting 'true' for right in the latter) are most definitely different concepts for me (they are both normative though...but for radically different reasons). But this view is of course colored by my conception of epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics. Some philosophers go so far as to say that just what 'true' is, is what is 'right for one to do'...and stuff like that. I make a pretty fine distinction...but it's my distinction.

Postmodern Beatnik
I Just Work Here

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 2102

Posted 06/20/09 - 11:36 AM:	#20
dman1 wrote: But how can something deemed as subjective be wrong? Opinions are inherently subjective. Not necessarily. Opinions such as "there are at least 25 geese in that flock," "chocolate is better than vanilla," or even "I like chocolate more than I like vanilla" are all truth-apt. That is, they are the kind of thing that can be true or false. They are also all potential opinions. It might be that they originate due to some feeling (perhaps just a "gut feeling"), but that doesn't mean that they don't wind up as assertions. dman1 wrote: If someone deems something you say to be an opinion, how can it be wrong? If I take an antique to an appraiser and he tells me that he thinks I could get no more than $100 for it, he has given me his professional opinion. But if I get $200 for it, he was clearly wrong. If I go to a doctor he might tell me that, in his medical opinion, I do not have pneumonia. But if I do in fact have pneumonia, he can be wrong (perhaps my symptoms were misleading). While it is not always the case, opinions have a tendency to "reach out" from the speaker and involve claims about the world. And the moment that happens, truth and falsity follow.
"An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination." --Voltaire "If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." --Thomas Jefferson

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.