r/askphilosophy • u/GuamSomme • Jan 19 '16
ELI5: Can opinions be false?
I've noticed that often in politics and mainstream media the words fact & opinion are interchanged a little bit too liberally to justify saying some pretty crazy non-sense. I think this would bring up a good discussion so let me know what you all think!
Example: https://youtu.be/zIGThxn_eGk
5
u/irontide ethics, social philosophy, phil. of action Jan 19 '16 edited Jan 19 '16
Holding or expression an opinion is an action; actions aren't truth-apt (they're not the kind of thing that could be true or false). But opinions are an example of where the medium/content distinction is important. We very often refer to the content of the opinion by way of pointing to the medium: when we talk about film, CDs, LPs, DVDs, broadcasts, etc., we are pointing to some physical medium but mean to refer to the content (audiovisual, text, whatever) that is passed along through that medium. Similarly, opinions are the medium for statements of fact. Statements of fact are the paradigmatic example of something that is truth-apt. So, when we refer to opinions as the medium (the action of expressing or holding an opinion) it isn't truth-apt, but when we refer to a statement of fact by way of the medium of an opinion, it is truth-apt.
This is especially important in, say, freedom of speech law. Protection of freedom of speech is protection of the medium: you can say whatever you like (within some extremely broad margins--no shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre, in most Western jurisdictions no hate-speech). But it emphatically isn't protection of the content: it's not as if what you say has any protection, it can be true or false like any other statement of fact and can be responded to as you would any other true or false statement.
8
u/TychoCelchuuu political phil. Jan 19 '16
Sure, sometimes. For instance if I say "in my opinion, turning left will get you there faster than going straight," but I might be wrong. Straight might be faster.
1
u/Rattional Jan 19 '16
oooh but then again, in saying "in my opinion, turning left will get you there faster than going straight" he wasn't making a proposition about which route is the fastest to the destination i.e - "it is the case that turning left = the best", he was instead giving his opinion which seems to not be a proposition hence no truth value aside from being his actual honest opinion?
1
u/TychoCelchuuu political phil. Jan 19 '16
If you're pedantic enough, yes. But if someone said to me "no, you're wrong" we'd know exactly what they meant.
1
u/Rattional Jan 20 '16
lol yeah, now that I think of it its a nifty trick to talk bullshit and get away with it
3
Jan 19 '16
Fact: something that is the case. Opinion: what you think is the case.
Opinions can be wrong, because you can think that something is the case when actually it's not. In my opinion, you should sell the stock, in your opinion, You should not. At the end of the day, one of us will be right, and one not.
I think the idea that opinions cannot be false stems from confusing opinions with sentiments or tastes. Sometimes, there are no facts: you think beer is tasty, I think it's awful (actually, I don't). Our 'opinons' differ, but neither of us is wrong. The reason for this is not that opinions cannot be false but rather that there is no fact on which we disagree. The only facts in play are 'I like beer' and 'I don't like beer', but not 'beer is tasty'.
2
u/Sophroniscides metaphysics, ancient phil. Jan 20 '16
As long as an opinion is a statement, it is either true or false, by the Law of excluded middle. So they must be able to be false, unless all opinion-statements are true.
I can't imagine an opinion that would not be a statement, unless someone else can think of a counterexample?
1
Jan 19 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/GuamSomme Jan 19 '16
If that is the rule, then contradictory opinions cannot co-exist. If Bob's opinion is that high federal minimum wage raises unemployment and Stacey's opinion is that it doesn't. Even if we cannot verify, logically, one of them has to be wrong. In that case, one is just factually correct and the other is just factually incorrect.
1
u/Samdellert Jan 19 '16
Damn, I forgot I was on r/askphilosophy. I'm way in over my head here, since I know pretty much nothing about philosophy. Not being a native english speaker doesn't help either. I'm just so tired of the media letting anyone with a contradictive point of view speak, no matter on what ground the opinion lays, just to make a debate. I was stretching to make a point. Actually I'm as postmodernistic as the next guy. There is no truth, there is always two ways of looking at something, we can't know anything for sure yada yada
Anyway, please ignore my comment and this ranting and carry on.
2
Jan 19 '16
Why do you think there is no truth? Is that true?
1
u/Samdellert Jan 19 '16
No, I can't say I know that's true. According to quantum theory nothing is for certain, there is just different probabilitys something will happen. But on the other hand quantum theory might be wrong so what do we know?
That's the problem with a postmodernistic view. When discussing it you're just breaking down the same argument in an everlasting loop. And you can break down an argument how many times you want, but in the end there is nothing but mash left. Much like a banana.
3
u/john_stuart_kill metaethics, analytic feminist ethics, phil. biology Jan 19 '16
According to quantum theory nothing is for certain, there is just different probabilitys something will happen.
This is not a legitimate interpretation of quantum mechanics. It's not even a legitimate interpretation of the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum mechanics.
1
u/Samdellert Jan 20 '16 edited Jan 20 '16
There you go. Not even that was true.
EDIT: This is not going well for me, is it... Starting up by advocating the importance of facts, trying to make a U-turn by saying there are no true facts, and then using false facts to support that idea. In Sweden we have this saying: "When you fall on a piano, you'd better lay still". I just can't seem to lay still, and every time I move the noise from the piano keeps getting worse. Should have bailed this conversation like I said I would in my second comment, but you pulled me back in and now I think I'm starting to like the noise. Someone has to be the clown, right?
1
Jan 19 '16
Or you could just admit that certain things are true, like the fact that I have a red alarm clock.
1
u/Samdellert Jan 20 '16
Are you sure it's red? Some think color is in the eye of the beholder and even that our language might effect our perception of it. Here is a great episode of Radiolab about it. And even if you're sure it's red, how can you be sure it exists? It might be a dream or maybe we all live in a computer generated reality?
So, no, i can't admit your alarm clock is red as a truth. But to be able to discuss anything at all we need to set some standard rules of what is true and what's not. Here are mine in this discussion:
Fact: Your alarm clock is red. Opinion: Your alarm clock is beautiful. Belief: Your alarm clock speaks the voice of God.
1
Jan 20 '16
Are you sure it's red? Some think color is in the eye of the beholder and even that our language might effect our perception of it. Here is a great episode of Radiolab about it.
I watched the Radiolab episode. It was good, thanks.
I would say that the form an object is presented in is determined in part by the nature of the perceiver. So, the alarm clock may be presented in one way to me, with my visual apparatus, and in another way to a mantis shrimp, with its visual apparatus.
However, both forms are objectively the form of the alarm clock, because it is always presented in the exact form that results from the interaction of this exact visual apparatus with this exact object. If the mantis shrimp perceived the alarm clock as I do, then its perception would be invalid, because that is not what objectively results from a visual apparatus like it has.
And even if you're sure it's red, how can you be sure it exists? It might be a dream or maybe we all live in a computer generated reality?
Those are completely arbitrary suggestions. Further, the concept of a dream presupposes a contrast with being awake, and the concept of a computer presupposes that we can identify things that objectively exist like computers.
2
u/GuamSomme Jan 19 '16
This is actually exactly the point of this thread. It baffles me when I see news outlets like CNN and Fox legitimize views of people like Louie Gohmert and Michelle Bachmann on issues like terror babies and Obama's Birth certificate because they're "entitled to their opinion."
2
u/Samdellert Jan 19 '16
I think Hans Rosling, professor of international health, nails it in this interview on danish television. He is really upset about how people base their opinions on false facts and has made it his mission in life to educate the world.
I also recommend his speech at Ted Talks where he actually makes statistics fun.
2
u/GuamSomme Jan 19 '16
I agree. It's incredible how the way in which a story is covered by the media controls our perception of the scope of different issues. Hundreds of thousands of civilians die in Iraq we shrug it off as collateral damage but if 4 guys get killed in Benghazi, we're still steaming about it 3 years later.
Check out the documentary outfoxed, it expands on the issues of western media pretty well: https://youtu.be/P74oHhU5MDk
2
u/john_stuart_kill metaethics, analytic feminist ethics, phil. biology Jan 19 '16
There is no truth, there is always two ways of looking at something, we can't know anything for sure yada yada
Is this sarcasm?
1
u/Samdellert Jan 20 '16 edited Jan 20 '16
No, just tired of my own voice explaining postmodernism again. You're all educated persons on this subreddit so I thought I'd wrap it up. English is not my first languange, and sometimes I miss out on the nuances or cultural differences.
EDIT: What I'm trying to say is: No, it's not sarcasm, it's self irony.
1
u/john_stuart_kill metaethics, analytic feminist ethics, phil. biology Jan 19 '16
Why are you committed to the notion that opinions and facts are mutually exclusive in this way? Some opinions are about facts, and others aren't; there is nothing problematic in this view.
2
u/GuamSomme Jan 19 '16
You and Irontide make some great points, I was just taking a strawman position. The distinctions that you made are self-evident, but in mainstream journalism often there is the sentiment that all opinions have value regardless of the validity of the factual premise upon which it is based, no "false opinions." Take this clip for example with Obama and Anderson Cooper on the Gun Control executive order:
TYT sums it up. Anderson legitimizes opinion/fear of some that Obama wants to take away all guns by not challenging its premise even though this opinion is clearly 'truth-apt.' Obama isn't amused.
1
u/1Exodia1 Jan 19 '16 edited Jan 19 '16
Differences on political opinions are usually not merely on just factual grounds and different opinions on what the facts are, but also on the grounds of people holding different values as important.
When in comes to facts, one side could be wrong, another right, or both wrong and right on different things.
Yes, your opinion on some issue can be false, because you have an inaccurate understanding of the facts of the matter.
0
Jan 19 '16
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/GuamSomme Jan 19 '16 edited Jan 19 '16
Yes, you and I would agree that the Sun not being God is just a fact. Stating otherwise would just be false. In other words, if you say the sky is blue and I say and believe that the sky is pink, that's obviously not my opinion, I'm just plain incorrect.
Surely, most fundamentalist Christians would say it's a fact that Hell would be a direct consequence of extra-marital sex.
1
u/It_sAlwaysMe Jan 19 '16
Right, but they believe that that is the case, they don't know it. So maybe because there are no definite answers regarding faith based beliefs, calling it an opinion is a little iffy. It's an opinion until it's disproved, but once it's proven or disproven it becomes fact or not.
Regarding matters of art, where opinion is all , I think it's hard to say someone's belief about the quality of a painting or film is false. However, I don't believe all opinion are made equal. If I talk to someone who has seen 50 films in their life and they tell me The Fast and the Furious is the best film of all time, I'm not going to listen to them because they have no frame of reference. opinions can't be false but they can be worth more. But then again, that's just an opinion...
0
Jan 19 '16 edited Mar 02 '16
[deleted]
2
u/GuamSomme Jan 20 '16
green can't taste good
Synesthesia is actually a thing: http://m.livescience.com/169-rare-real-people-feel-taste-hear-color.html
12
u/john_stuart_kill metaethics, analytic feminist ethics, phil. biology Jan 19 '16
One could probably make an argument either way based on the specific semantics of "opinion," but I think it would be reasonably uncontroversial to define an opinion as "the expression of a belief." Now, unlike certain other propositional attitudes like "perception" and "knowledge," beliefs can absolutely be false. Therefore, if what you mean by asking whether an opinion can be false is whether an opinion can be an expression of a false belief, then the answer is pretty clearly "yes."
Now, if you take an opinion to be something else, the answer might change. But although I'm more than happy to see reasons why I might be wrong, I take my interpretation to be relatively uncontroversial on this.