Opinions: Philosophy Forums

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

Opinions

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Opinions

Postmodern Beatnik
I Just Work Here

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 2059

Posted 06/20/09 - 12:16 PM:	#21
treysuttle wrote: I have mentioned this, I have a bias towards a certain, perhaps overly 'scholastic' conception of doing philosophy. I do, too. But I try not to hold it against others when they do not. I also try to interpret them as charitably as possible, which is another one of those academic scruples to which professional philosophers tend to hold. treysuttle wrote: In no logic class would 'right' be acceptable as a substitute for 'true'. Not on an assignment, no. You can't put "R" and "W" into a truth table and expect full marks. But logic class is one of those contexts in which strictness and clarity are most important. Moreover, one could ask "would it be right to say that the biconditional rules are merely extensions of the rules for standard conditionals?" or something like that. I should hope that any decent logic professor would understand the question. treysuttle wrote: 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. "Having a right to assume" was your example, not mine. You couched it in explicitly political terms, and I responded in kind. Previously, however, I had been talking about instances in which one says "if we are right to assume." Here I am thinking of papers in which the author runs up against one of his own assumptions, gives a rudimentary defense thereof, and goes on to argue that his argumentation is sound so long as we accept it. (The assumption is typically a fairly uncontroversial one, otherwise the rudimentary defense would be patently insufficient.) treysuttle wrote: Having a right to assume p and assuming that p is right is simply not semantically equivalent, as I see it. I agree. Whatever made you think that I do not? treysuttle wrote: 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). I agree that the two are different. Again, I don't see how you got any other impression. My point about normativity in political philosophy -- which is the context in which you placed the notion of "having a right" -- was only that most political philosophers think that the normativity of such political rights is very much the same as the normativity of ethics. But this is not to say that the normativity of ethics and politics is at all like that of logic and epistemology.
"An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination." --Voltaire

dman1
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 19, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 13

Posted 06/20/09 - 05:56 PM:	#22
Postmodern Beatnik wrote: 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. This is why I was asking if an objective opinion even exists. By dictionary definition, that term is an oxymoron. And how can an opinion of personal preference be true or false? How can chocolate being better than vanilla be true or false? Postmodern Beatnik wrote: 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. Then he didn't really give you an opinion so much as he gave you a professional presumption. I think that alot of people say "in my opinion..." but what follows tends to not be an opinion so much as it is just presumption. When I think of the difference of the two, an opinion is off-top subjective and basically is just a reaction to facts. Facts can be right or wrong, but not an opinion. It is my opinion that no opinion can be right or wrong simply for the fact that we can never truly prove anything because we live in a world where possibility is, as far as we can tell, infinite.

unenlightened
everything is...

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Aug 10, 2007
Location: Wales

Total Topics: 36
Total Posts: 3203

Posted 06/21/09 - 12:16 AM:	#23
Is it possible that there is a very simple confusion here? When one says, "It is my opinion that X", one is saying something about oneself, and one's subjective dispositions. It would be unreasonable to reply, "No, that's not your opinion at all." But this does not prevent the contents of one's opinion, 'X' from being completely wrong. For example. dman1 wrote: It is my opinion that no opinion can be right or wrong... It is my opinion that an opinion can be right or wrong. Clearly, it is possible for us to hold contradictory opinions, but at the same time, it seems to me that either an opinion can be right or wrong, or it cannot. Thus one of our opinions is right, and the other is wrong. Which means mine is right.
...most of our actions are the result of the past, or according to a future ideal. That's not action, that is just conformity. J Krishnamurti "Philosophy, to the Philistine, is an evolutionary process, watched over by some sort of brisk dynamic Providence, and culminating in the supreme insight of modern thought." John Cowper Powys

Legion
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 25, 2008
Location: North Carolina

Total Topics: 7
Total Posts: 117

Posted 06/21/09 - 12:49 AM:	#24
Unenlightened you make me laugh like few can.
We sense. We reason. We predict. We don't always get those right.

dman1
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 19, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 13

Posted 06/21/09 - 03:48 AM:	#25
unenlightened wrote: Is it possible that there is a very simple confusion here? When one says, "It is my opinion that X", one is saying something about oneself, and one's subjective dispositions. It would be unreasonable to reply, "No, that's not your opinion at all." But this does not prevent the contents of one's opinion, 'X' from being completely wrong. For example. It is my opinion that an opinion can be right or wrong. Clearly, it is possible for us to hold contradictory opinions, but at the same time, it seems to me that either an opinion can be right or wrong, or it cannot. Thus one of our opinions is right, and the other is wrong. Which means mine is right. That was very interesting. Made me think about it. The only thing I can come up with in justification is that what I stated was not an opinion, but was rather a fact. A true (or "right" as I've been using synonymously) fact, at that. Opinions exist outside the realm of objective measurement, they can only be subjectively measured, and if you were to ask everyone their opinion on everything, you'd most likely find that nobody shares the exact same opinion on everything. So an opinion cannot truly contradict another opinion, because we are all different people with different views on matters. Take this for example: - It is my opinion that Beyonce is a better singer than Madonna - It is Bobs opinion that Madonna is a better singer than Beyonce While they seem to run in contradiction, they truly don't. Because they are subjective measurements. The statements themselves contradict, but not the actual opinions. And it all comes down to introspection. Since no one can actually be anyone else, you cannot expect there to be a real right or wrong answer when it comes to opinion. Some might say that this "opinion" would be wrong: - Bob: It is my opinion that no living organism needs water to survive. That is not an opinion at all. Just because someone says it is their opinion doesn't mean that it truly is. It is simply an untrue fact that Bob may or may not believe in. Belief in facts does not make them opinions. The reason it is not an opinion is because it can be objectively measured. All known life on Earth does need water to survive. Bob himself needs water to survive. So yeah, I'll answer my own question from earlier. There is no such thing as an objective opinion. Once an "opinion" enters the realm of objectivity and can be objectively proven or disproven, it is no longer opinion, and becomes a fact.

treysuttle
Graduate

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

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 213

Posted 06/21/09 - 03:58 AM:	#26
Of some opinions, the content thereof are 'preferences'. Which cannot be true or false.

xzJoel
Bio-clump

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

Total Topics: 32
Total Posts: 797

Posted 06/22/09 - 10:13 AM:	#27
Postmodern Beatnik wrote: (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! PB, I was planning on writing a long winding narrative to illustrate that your two assumptions/premises are both conclusions and not assumptions at all. I was going to invoke language as a symbolic medium for communication and various instances of your using sensory experience to make conclusions about the status of the world. Suffice it to say, statement 1) is an assertion that either is true or not. It may be your opinion that it is true, but you have an opinion about a conclusion, not an opinion about something properly fundamental. If I could show you that I did not have terminal boneitis, I would show that your first premise is wrong. Your all condition fails and so, to the extent that your statement is intended to tell us something true about the world, your statement is false. This illustrates an important point about my earlier post. Where an “opinion” is subject to verification, it is not an opinion at all, rather a conclusion. Where an opinion is not subject to verification, it is an actual opinion and therefore cannot be said to be true or false/right or wrong. When dealing in logic, it is not important in what way you developed your premise, all that is important is that it is your premise. Consequently, the argument that results from your two premises is logically lovely. If I could not attack your first premise as being a conclusion poorly concealed as an opinion, I might have something to worry about it. (Your second premise is also a conclusion. I must accept it as true for your proof, but if my username did not start with an “x”, then your second premise would be false.) To the extent that 1) is an opinion and 3) is a conclusory opinion, they are both wrong. If your argument was intended to be an illustration of logical argument, so what? Where we are to take a premise as true for the sake of logical proof, we are not accepting your premise to have any actual relationship to the world which we believe proposition are either true or false about. You can not cast a pox upon me merely through using my name and a disease (fictitious though it be) in a valid argument. We must never confuse “it is true that my opinion is . . ” with “my opinion that . . . is true”. Whenever you have an opinion, the first is true. The second is true only when your opinion qualifies as being true. When it does not, the second is either false or (neither true nor false). P.S. Notice your argument is a bit circular. 1) is an empirical observation which must include the evaluation of all members of the set "members with usernames beginning with 'x'". Since I would be such a member, I must have terminal boneitis for you to conclude 1) in the first place. One might even say, "1) iff 3)." And no, "All men are mortal" is not a priori. I've got at least 6 billion examples of people that have never died. Edited by xzJoel on 06/23/09 - 08:39 AM. Reason: Who is PBM?
Make a joyous noise onto the lord... Not a good one, just a joyous one.

Postmodern Beatnik
I Just Work Here

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 2059

Posted 06/25/09 - 07:34 AM:	#28
dman1 wrote: This is why I was asking if an objective opinion even exists. By dictionary definition, that term is an oxymoron. Here's a dictionary definition: opinion 1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. 2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal. 3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion. As you can see, all of the examples I've used so far fit within this definition. You started by asking whether or not opinions can be right or wrong (i.e. true or false). This question can be answered easily: some opinions seek to make an assessment about the world ("there are at least 25 geese in that flock") and can be correct or incorrect according to whether or not that assessment is accurate; other opinions ("chocolate is better than vanilla") merely express preferences and are neither right or wrong. If a preference is treated as an assessment -- that is, if you argue with someone over whether or not chocolate really is better than vanilla -- such opinions can again be right or wrong. All of this merely restates what I said in post #6. Whether an opinion can be objective or subjective is a different, though related, question. Let's make a distinction between simple and complex opinions. Opinions are simple when they are nothing but personal attitudes, such as preferences. Opinions are complex when they are the sort of opinions that make assessments about the world. Simple opinions are purely subjective. The content of a simple opinion can be stated as part of an assertion (e.g. "I like chocolate better than vanilla"), and such statements will relate an objective fact insofar as we have accurately stated the content of our opinion. But such statements are no longer opinions and do not change the purely subjective nature of simple opinions. Complex opinions are not purely subjective. They are still subjective in the sense that they are ultimately based on an inference from incomplete information, but they also try to be objective in that it is hoped those assessments are accurate. So opinions are always subjective, but the degree to which they are subjective determines whether or not they are truth-apt (that is, capable of being true or false). dman1 wrote: And how can an opinion of personal preference be true or false? How can chocolate being better than vanilla be true or false? A personal preference cannot be true or false, nor have I said otherwise. A statement of that preference can be true or false, and complex opinions can be as well. But simple opinions such as preferences cannot be, as they are purely subjective. dman1 wrote: Postmodern Beatnik wrote: 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. Then he didn't really give you an opinion so much as he gave you a professional presumption. Refer to the above definitions 1 and 3 of "opinion." dman1 wrote: I think that alot of people say "in my opinion..." but what follows tends to not be an opinion so much as it is just presumption. When I think of the difference of the two, an opinion is off-top subjective and basically is just a reaction to facts. Facts can be right or wrong, but not an opinion. Definitions of "opinion," "assumption," and "presumption" may overlap at times. It is very common to refer to professional judgments as opinions, even if they may also be presumptions. English is wonderfully diverse and full of synonyms. dman1 wrote: It is my opinion that no opinion can be right or wrong simply for the fact that we can never truly prove anything because we live in a world where possibility is, as far as we can tell, infinite. First, I would suggest that your opinion that no opinion can be right or wrong is itself a complex opinion -- and a self-defeating one at that. Second, you are confusing questions about knowledge with questions about truth. Whether or not you can actually know or prove something has nothing to do with whether or not it can be true or false.
"An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination." --Voltaire

Postmodern Beatnik
I Just Work Here

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 2059

Posted 06/25/09 - 07:34 AM:	#29
unenlightened wrote: Is it possible that there is a very simple confusion here? When one says, "It is my opinion that X", one is saying something about oneself, and one's subjective dispositions. It would be unreasonable to reply, "No, that's not your opinion at all." I take it that I said as much in post #6, but apparently your presentation was more accessible. treysuttle wrote: Of some opinions, the content thereof are 'preferences'. Which cannot be true or false.
"An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination." --Voltaire

Postmodern Beatnik
I Just Work Here

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 2059

Posted 06/25/09 - 07:36 AM:	#30
xzJoel wrote: I was planning on writing a long winding narrative to illustrate that your two assumptions/premises are both conclusions and not assumptions at all. But what you said was: xzJoel wrote: If an opinion is an assumption/premise, it cannot be wrong because that is your starting point. (emphasis added) Even if you deny that "all members with usernames beginning with 'x' have terminal boneitis" is an assumption, you have just conceded above that it is a premise. As such, it follows from your own statement that it cannot be wrong. And if we need a case where it is clearer that we are dealing with assumptions, we can return to my example of indirect proof. Reductio ad absurdum operates by making an assumption and demonstrating that the assumption leads to a contradiction, thus proving that the assumption was false (and its negation true). This wouldn't be possible if assumptions were necessarily true. A hypothetical investigation may begin with an assumption that cannot be questioned for the purpose of that investigation, but that in no way says that the assumption/premise itself cannot actually be false. xzJoel wrote: Suffice it to say, statement 1) is an assertion that either is true or not. I know. That was my point. xzJoel wrote: This illustrates an important point about my earlier post. Where an “opinion” is subject to verification, it is not an opinion at all, rather a conclusion. Look at the definition of "opinion" I posted above: the word covers many things, including beliefs based upon incomplete information. If you don't want to use the word that way, fine. But then you need to clarify before making an argument, not after. xzJoel wrote: We must never confuse “it is true that my opinion is . . ” with “my opinion that . . . is true”. Whenever you have an opinion, the first is true. The second is true only when your opinion qualifies as being true. When it does not, the second is either false or (neither true nor false). I agree. And you'll notice I've been careful with that distinction from my first post. xzJoel wrote: P.S. Notice your argument is a bit circular. 1) is an empirical observation which must include the evaluation of all members of the set "members with usernames beginning with 'x'". Since I would be such a member, I must have terminal boneitis for you to conclude 1) in the first place. One might even say, "1) iff 3)." I guarantee you that I did absolutely no research into whether or not any member here whatsoever has terminal boneitis. As such, (1) isn't an empirical observation -- it's an assumption (and a wild one at that). I just picked it out of the blue as a test case for your assertion that assumptions/premises cannot be false. Every criticism you make of (1), then, only strengthens my position. Because if what you wrote were correct, there could be no such criticisms.
"An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination." --Voltaire

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

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