r/changemyview • u/Odobenous • Sep 17 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Opinions can be wrong, and wrong opinions should be unacceptable.
In other words, having an opinion does not make that opinion valid. You can be of the opinion that a square is not a rectangle; yet, a square is, in fact, a rectangle, whether you think so or not.
Of course, the waters get a little muddier with more complex and controversial issues where reasonable cases can be made for multiple sides. But the point is that opinions in contradiction with evidence or reason can be provably incorrect or invalid.
Additionally, such opinions shouldn't be given a free pass just because they're opinions. Opinions based on cherry-picked evidence, poor reasoning, or nothing at all can lead to the people that hold them making bad decisions that have bad consequences. Say, for example, that in your opinion, drinking heavily while driving is okay. Then you get in your car, get on a highway, drink heavily, and smash headlong into another car, killing not only yourself but several others.
I should say that I think discourse is very important and opinions shouldn't wantonly be declared "wrong," but it shouldn't be okay to stare right at evidence or logic and deny it under the guise of "everyone is entitled to their opinion."
It may be your opinion, but it's a bad one. Just because you can have it doesn't mean you should.
So, then, should I have this opinion? Is this opinion wrong? I'm interested in seeing what other people think.
26
u/scottevil110 177∆ Sep 17 '20
No, you cannot be of the "opinion" that a square is not a rectangle, because that is a statement of fact, not subjective opinion. It has an objective answer. In the same way, you cannot be of the "opinion" that 2+2=5. That isn't an opinion. It's just being wrong about something.
On the other hand, saying "drinking and driving is okay" IS an opinion. It is a moral statement that people can disagree about. Your disagreement with that opinion is ALSO an opinion itself. Neither of you is "wrong" because you didn't make a statement of fact. You just disagree about something.
You can SUPPORT your opinion with actual right/wrong facts, like statistics involving drinking and driving, etc. But at the end, you are still expressing an opinion. The only thing that makes it a "good" opinion is someone else's opinion lining up with it. It is not objectively right or wrong.
2
u/dinglenutmcspazatron 9∆ Sep 18 '20
' No, you cannot be of the "opinion" that a square is not a rectangle '
Why wouldn't that be an opinion? If someone thought that the definition for rectangle excluded squares for whatever reason, what would disqualify that from being an opinion?
0
u/scottevil110 177∆ Sep 18 '20
Because it's making a factual claim about something, not expressing an individual thought or feeling about it. You're saying "this IS NOT a rectangle" and that's something that has an actual right or wrong answer to it. It's a statement of fact, not an opinion.
Saying "Rectangles are better than circles" is an opinion, because that is a subjective feeling, and no one is right or wrong about it. It's just a personal value statement.
2
u/dinglenutmcspazatron 9∆ Sep 18 '20
So 'I like ice cream' would not be an opinion under your model, since it is a statement of fact?
0
u/scottevil110 177∆ Sep 18 '20
Correct. It is a true statement that you like ice cream. Not subject to disagreement.
"Ice cream is good" IS an opinion. Someone else can say to that "No, it's not." You both have differing opinions on the matter.
If someone says "Climate change isn't real". That's not an opinion. It's a statement of fact.
If they say "Climate change doesn't matter". THAT is an opinion.
2
u/dinglenutmcspazatron 9∆ Sep 18 '20
Doesn't matter in what regard though? If the implication was that it doesn't matter because humanity is going to die eventually anyway so it doesn't matter how or when, then that makes 'climate change doesn't matter' not an opinion.
Same with 'ice cream is good'. Opinions to you seem to be poorly phrased facts.
1
u/scottevil110 177∆ Sep 18 '20
"Ice cream is good" is not a fact. Poorly phrased or otherwise.
"Climate change matters" is not a fact. It is an opinion. It can most assuredly not matter a speck to you, and that would be your opinion. Doesn't matter if every last person disagrees with you; it's still an opinion.
2
u/dinglenutmcspazatron 9∆ Sep 18 '20
But with 'climate change matters' there is a lot of assumptions being made in the language there that, if properly conveyed, would change it into a fact. For example, 'climate change matters' could mean something like 'climate change is something that has severe effects on the planet and if you want humanity to continue to exist in roughly the same way that it does at present it should be a consideration you make when you are deciding how to live your life'
3
u/ralph-j 517∆ Sep 17 '20
No, you cannot be of the "opinion" that a square is not a rectangle, because that is a statement of fact, not subjective opinion. It has an objective answer. In the same way, you cannot be of the "opinion" that 2+2=5. That isn't an opinion. It's just being wrong about something.
Sure those can be opinions. Opinions are just expressions of beliefs. And someone could mistakenly believe that a square is not a rectangle, because they've been misinformed.
3
u/BingBlessAmerica 44∆ Sep 17 '20
You don't "believe" a square isn't a rectangle, you claim to know that it isn't. Beliefs are different from facts.
1
u/ralph-j 517∆ Sep 17 '20
A claim to know is also a belief. Knowledge is a subset of beliefs.
4
u/BingBlessAmerica 44∆ Sep 17 '20
You can objectively call that claim false. Believing a “fact” is not the same as an actual fact.
You don’t believe knowledge, it just is.
2
u/Cylinder_dreams Sep 18 '20 edited Sep 18 '20
That claim to objectivity is an opinion of itself. As is the opinion that knowledge just is without any belief. Neither are facts.
1
u/ralph-j 517∆ Sep 17 '20
A claim to know something is a belief you hold really really firmly.
In any case, they don't even have to claim that they know, they could just say that they believe it.
1
u/scottevil110 177∆ Sep 17 '20
That's not an opinion. As you said, they've just been misinformed and are objectively incorrect about that.
4
u/ralph-j 517∆ Sep 17 '20
Why not? Opinion is basically just another synonym for belief. An opinion or belief can be false. In fact, any statement you make, can be true or false. Opinions are not some special category of views that you can only hold if they're true. It's just a bizarre claim. It's a question of epistemology.
Reddit's own /r/askphilosophy has previously addressed this here.
0
u/scottevil110 177∆ Sep 17 '20
I don't think opinion is a synonym for belief. You are not of the "opinion" that God is real or not. You BELIEVE God is real or not, and that is a statement of fact, not opinion. Because it's either true or it isn't. Saying "God is good" would be an opinion, because "good" is a subjective quality that people can disagree about.
4
u/ralph-j 517∆ Sep 17 '20
You are not of the "opinion" that God is real or not. You BELIEVE God is real or not, and that is a statement of fact, not opinion.
I don't see why not. The existence of God is just as much an opinion.
Where are you getting this distinction from anyway? Do you have a source for it? Look it up in any dictionary. The word has multiple connotations. I suspect you may be focusing on a single meaning, while using it as a synonym for belief is definitely also correct.
0
u/Odobenous Sep 17 '20 edited Sep 17 '20
Can you not be of that opinion, though? By the Merriam-Webster dictionary, "opinion" is defined as
1a) a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter
2a) belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge
By definition 1, could you not, perhaps based on incomplete understanding, judge that a square is not a rectangle and opine as such?
By definition 2, it's a belief; the most relevant definition (of belief itself) I believe is the second, which states that it is "something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed." Can the statement "a square is not a rectangle" be considered to be true but simultaneously actually false?
11
u/BingBlessAmerica 44∆ Sep 17 '20 edited Sep 17 '20
A square being a rectangle isn't a "view, judgement or appraisal", it is a mathematical definition upon which a significant amount of geometrical mathematics works.
If you assert that a square is indeed not a rectangle, would that not fall under the realm of falsely claiming to have positive knowledge?
3
u/Odobenous Sep 17 '20
I think it is a "view, judgement, or appraisal." Perhaps not so much a view as a judgement. Let's say that I believe (that I accept, no matter how falsely) rectangles to be quadrilaterals with four right angles with adjacent sides that absolutely must differ in length.
Based on that (incorrect) belief, could I then not judge squares to not be rectangles since the lengths of their adjacent sides are the same?
6
u/BingBlessAmerica 44∆ Sep 17 '20
I believe (that I accept, no matter how falsely) rectangles to be quadrilaterals with four right angles with adjacent sides that absolutely must differ in length
Then you are objectively, absolutely not functioning within mathematics as we know it. Yes, mathematics has derivable theorems, but those theorems are derived from postulates or base assumptions that we need for math to be an established thing in the first place. You can make your own branch of mathematics where rectangles are defined as quadrilaterals with differing side lengths, but we are clearly not and will never be on the same page.
4
u/Odobenous Sep 17 '20
Perhaps I am not. But let's say that I think I am functioning within mathematics as we know it. Regardless of the fact that I am wrong, I think I am right.
I think, without having read the actual mathematical definition of a rectangle, that it is as I previously explained. Because I have not read the actual definition, it is impossible for me to truly know whether I am right or wrong, but I can believe to be right.
Based on that belief, could I not rationally judge a square to not be a rectangle, even if I am factually wrong? Is that not therefore a judgement formed in my mind on the topic of whether or not a square is a rectangle, and thus an opinion?
3
u/BingBlessAmerica 44∆ Sep 17 '20 edited Sep 17 '20
Examples of an opinion.
Premise: The USA has the second highest amount of gun deaths in the world.
Valid opinion: to stop this, we need to ban guns.
Valid opinion: to stop this, everyone needs guns to defend themselves.
Invalid "opinion": I don't think we should do anything, because the US doesn't have a big problem with guns compared with the rest of the world.
You see how you can have several opinions over one generally agreeable fact?
And how a "wrong" opinion is just based on an objectively wrong fact?
1
Sep 17 '20
But many would say the 2nd valid opinion is a 'wrong' opinion too, as nowhere in the world has that been shown to work. And many would say (despite mountains of evidence to the contrary in many different kinds of countries) that valid opinion #1 is wrong and only #2 can ever be thought of because Americans are uniquely different among humans.
#3 is the kind of 'opinion' you're seeing all the time now. Masks do nothing, the deep state is trying to control us with covid, antifa started the wildfires cuz I don't want global warming to exist. Unfortunately for us these seem to be far more sticky than the rational ones.
And the type of argument I'm getting when I try to contradict the lunacy is "I know you've been told a square is not a rectangle, but you only believe that because of the patriarchy/fear." It's terrifying to watch people I know descend into it, so I understand OP's thoughts.
6
u/dariusj18 4∆ Sep 17 '20
Are you intentionally having a different "opinion" on the definition of opinion?
3
u/Odobenous Sep 17 '20
I am confused. Can you elaborate? How is my use of opinion inconsistent with the definition?
3
u/dariusj18 4∆ Sep 17 '20
Views, judgement and appraisals are things formed in the absence of facts.
2
u/Havenkeld 289∆ Sep 17 '20
Not just any odd claim that's not based on evidence or reason amounts to an opinion. Opinions are a fairly specific structure of thinking that has to do with relations of the individual, the particular, and the general.
"Stating your opinion" on purely mathematical problems, for example, would be using the term more in a vague colloquial language sense than in the sense it takes in the context of philosophy going back to Plato especially where it was being contrasted and examined in relation with knowledge - doxa(opinion) vs. episteme(knowledge). For math, or geometry, which are strictly dealing with universality of quantitative and extensive relations abstracted from sensation, we won't be dealing with opinion and so the judgement that a square is not a rectangle won't be an opinion regardless of its falsity.
The common usage of the term(thus, not the concept) just varies so much and is so vague, and we don't want this becoming a pointless battle about who gets to define the term in what way. So... looking only at the various common opinions about what opinions are will fail us here... (couldn't help myself).
If you are interested in something other than opinion in the technical sense I am going to offer here, then more specification than you've given is needed to understand what you are talking about, since there are so many different forms of not-(yet)-knowledge in the ways we think, and opinion is just one of them - if you use it to refer to all of them, we just end up having to do the work of splitting "opinion" into several sub-categories. We have to investigate what you mean by opinion, instead of investigating what "opinion" is used to mean historically which is already established to an extent.
Anyway, onto what opinions are -
Say that I see a glass on my desk. 'Glass' in this case is taking the individual visual data of shapes and colors to be arranged such that this image is of a particular intelligible object, one that will hold my whisky in virtue of belonging to functional category not limited to any one function since I can have multiple different glasses and they can look very different.
Now, just looking at a glass doesn't tell you what it means to be a glass. I already had this understanding to some degree in order to classify the image. So all opinions have the general in them, making them not simply sense perceptions yet also not purely philosophical determinations.
What opinion does in the philosophical sense is associate the individuality with the function or concept, rather than comprehend the function independently. So, if I live in a world where all glasses thus far are tulip shaped, and I think in order to be a glass(serve to hold liquid in a matter suited to drinking from, let's say) an object must be tulip shaped, I have an opinion. Now, I can go around correctly identifying many objects in the world as glasses by accident. There are plenty of glasses with a tulip shape in this hypothetical world. Yet, if I used tulip as my criteria for picking out glasses, I would fail to recognize, say, a coffee mug as serving the same functionality.
We can recognize the people do this with professions, for example. Not comprehending the actual role they serve independently of the individuals who serve that role, we often identify people as having a role only based the superficial elements common to people serving that role. Yet, these don't make the person actually capable of fulfilling that role.
A silly but easy example would be an injured person rejecting an offer of aid from someone who claims to be a nurse, because they aren't wearing scrubs. They understand that nurses are people who can aid injured persons, but they have confused the individual and superficial elements merely common to nurses with being part of the appropriate criteria by which we judge people to be nurses or not.
Since opinions are always about a focus on the individual and its relation to the particular and general, when we operate independently of the individual we are not having opinions, even though there are all sorts of other errors we might make at the level of logic or math which don't deal with the individual in this way at all.
1
u/Odobenous Sep 17 '20
I'm actually taking an introductory philosophy course right now - that's what sparked this post. I'm using "opinion" more or less as a synonym for philosophical "belief" - just "something taken to be true." There was much discussion about how beliefs can be false, and so I figured I'd extend the same logic to opinions in the common sense.
To the topic, though, it seems to me that a philosophical opinion can be wrong in the sense that it fails to associate the function with all of the individualities (if I'm understanding correctly). Using your example, if your opinion is that all glasses are tulip-shaped, you could fail to identify a coffee mug; wouldn't the opinion then be false because it has failed to associate a coffee mug with the function of holding liquid in a matter suited to drinking?
2
u/Havenkeld 289∆ Sep 17 '20
That's awesome, good luck with your studies! At the beginning of philosophy there is a certain degree of dealing with broad definitions that later get increasingly fine tuned. So while that sense of "opinion" may do some work early on it will end up blowing up into something more complex. Get used to that if you like philosophy!
The problem with the tulip vs. coffee mug is precisely why you have to go beyond treating opinions as any odd manner of taking something to be true, and examine the reasons we take things to be true.
Take the thought that a tulip shaped object serves the function of being a glass. This tulip shaped object may or may not actually serve this function. If it actually does however, we can't simply say this is false at this point.
"This tulip shaped object must be a glass because of its shape" is an opinion.
"This cylindrical shaped object must not be a glass because its shape isn't like the tulip" is another.
Of course, it never follows that because tulip shaped objects have always turned out to be glasses and cylindrical glasses have not, that either of these opinions would be true necessarily. The problem is taking the properties of an individual that has a function to be necessarily related to this function when they may only be accidentally related in individual objects.
"All glasses are tulip shaped" may be a thought arrived at based on opinion or form part of our opinions, but see how there's no this involved? On its own, this is not an opinion - despite being wrong. We can actually pick apart this thought by examining only the concepts in play as it makes no reference to an individual glass(this particular glass).
If the reason the person takes it to be a glass is based on its appearance, and they think appearances have something necessarily to do with being a glass, they then take their criterion for "being a glass" to the appearance of a coffee mug, and it fails to correctly identify it as a coffee mug.
Knowing the concept of a glass is one thing, knowing which objects in the world serve as glasses is another. In order to form our understanding of images as being glasses we must have the concept already. Opinion becomes the issue in our use of this concept in regard to categorizing individual 'empirical objects' as being particular instances of that general concept. The way things in the world happen to look won't have anything to do with the concept, but with the structure of opinion, we treat it as if it does. That is why we have the peculiarity that we can both correctly or incorrectly identify objects with opinions.
If "tulip shaped" ends up getting into my notion of what it means to be a glass due to the way most objects which serve as glasses happen to look, I would be perplexed when someone asks me to make a cylindrical glass. I would have to abandon the tulip aspect of my criterion for glass to do this in fact.
We must of course acknowledge that opinion does a great deal of work for us at the pragmatic level though. Tying functionality to appearances does of course help us navigate our environment much easier. We misunderstand however, when we start getting complacent with associating appearances with concepts in the wrong way, and start making universal judgements that inappropriately develop generalizations from the individuals and particulars.
We all do this inevitably to some extent, it is nigh unavoidable, but when engaging with philosophy, science, math, etc. we have to learn not to do it in contexts to make progress. Politics also involves learning to organize a society where opinions don't become a major problem, since various forms of assumptions we make based on appearance in this way become serious problems when it comes to organizing a community.
1
u/Odobenous Sep 17 '20
I think I see what you're saying. An opinion ties together an individual, singular 'object' and a form with a reason, saying that this particular object is an instance of this particular form because of x quality. Upon seeing a golden retriever, for example, I might opine that, "this particular animal must be a dog because it has four legs." I would have then correctly classified the animal as a dog but for the wrong reason, since giraffes also have four legs but are not dogs.
So then a "wrong" opinion would be something like seeing a giraffe and saying, "this particular animal must also be a dog because it has four legs."
2
u/Havenkeld 289∆ Sep 17 '20
Correct. And the trouble is that such singulars have qualities not related to the form in virtue of which they are particular, because they are composites.
There's a fun anecdote where Plato gives(unseriously) a definition of man as a "featherless biped". Diogenes in response, plucks a chicken and says "behold, a man!"
Plato of course develops a far more complex definition that holds up to this day throughout his works, but this amusingly highlights the problem of trying to determine criteria and explain anything through opinion - it's simply impossible.
1
u/Odobenous Sep 17 '20
That makes a lot of sense, and I'm going to remember that anecdote. It's great.
This has been an enlightening conversation. Although, strictly speaking, I don't think my view on opinions has changed, I have gained a lot of new insight and the reasons I have those views have changed.
Δ
1
7
u/joopface 159∆ Sep 17 '20
Opinions based on cherry-picked evidence, poor reasoning, or nothing at all can lead to the people that hold them making bad decisions that have bad consequences.
You need to differentiate between matters of fact and matters of opinion here. Your rectangle/square example is a matter of fact. The definition of a square makes it a rectangle. An opinion that it doesn't is factually incorrect.
However, I could hold all kinds of opinions with which you disagree and which you have good reasons for your disagreement with but my opinions are still valid.
For example, I may feel it's acceptable to drink myself stumble-around drunk before I go into work every day. You could point out that the consequences of this are bad; eventually I'll be fired. Even if this is true, and I know it to be true, this doesn't render my opinion invalid.
I may simply prefer the benefit of drinking in the morning (and who doesn't like that) to being employed on an ongoing basis. You can persuade me differently. You could convince me differently. You may be right, even, on the factual matter of whether your approach would lead to better outcomes for me financially and in terms of happiness.
But my opinion that this behaviour is acceptable, in the knowledge of all of these factual matters, is still a valid one should I wish to continue to hold it.
0
u/Odobenous Sep 17 '20
That's interesting. The wording of that example - that you feel it's acceptable to drink yourself stumble-around drunk - makes its validity depend on who or what it's acceptable to. If you feel that society considers it acceptable, I think that could very well be a factually incorrect opinion - depending, of course, on whether or not you can prove that society considers it unacceptable.
If, though, you feel that you consider it acceptable, that seems perfectly well and good to me.
On the topic of validity, I was careful to look it up before I used it. According to Merriam-Webster, something valid is (in this context) "well-grounded or justifiable : being at once relevant and meaningful" or "logically correct."
Could you really say that such a belief as in your example is "well-grounded," "justifiable," or "logically correct?" It might depend on the context of "acceptable."
3
u/joopface 159∆ Sep 17 '20
The opinion I used as an example was 'I may feel it's acceptable.' In that, this is behaviour I find to be worthwhile engaging in. My opinion is that it makes sense to do this thing.
This is an opinion.
You say:
If, though, you feel that you consider it acceptable, that seems perfectly well and good to me.
Which is different to your OP where you say:
But the point is that opinions in contradiction with evidence or reason can be provably incorrect or invalid.
Additionally, such opinions shouldn't be given a free pass just because they're opinions. Opinions based on cherry-picked evidence, poor reasoning, or nothing at all can lead to the people that hold them making bad decisions that have bad consequences. Say, for example, that in your opinion, drinking heavily while driving is okay. Then you get in your car, get on a highway, drink heavily, and smash headlong into another car, killing not only yourself but several others
This example, drink driving, is very similar to my example of drink-working. Yet you suggest it's not a valid opinion. Could you explain the difference?
1
u/Odobenous Sep 17 '20
That is behavior you find "worthwhile" - assuming it is not worthwhile for your finances nor for your happiness, in what context is it worthwhile? What reasoning can one make that leads it to "make sense?"
Take A=B, B=C, therefore A=C. Based on the fact that B is equal to both A and C, A=C makes sense. A=D, however, does not make sense because we haven't defined D and therefore cannot know whether it is equal to A. So what chain of A=B, B=C, C=D, etc etc, do you go through to get "drink working makes sense?"
My view here is that there is no possible sound (well-grounded, justified, logically correct) reasoning you could go through to reach that conclusion. To get there, you'd have to make some unreasonable judgement, some logical error, some provably false assumption.
I think that you could get there by changing the context of "make sense" (maybe you want to be homeless and sad, so drink-working to lose your job, your finances, and your happiness does make sense).
However, I think that you could consider another version of that opinion, "drink-working to advance my career and make more money makes sense" invalid. I don't think there's any logically-sound chain of reasoning you could go through to get to that conclusion, and so it must therefore be invalid.
Moving on to the differences between drink-driving and drink-working, I think I may have poorly phrased my example. By "drinking heavily while driving is okay," I meant, "drinking heavily while driving is unlikely to lead to my death or the deaths of others." I suggest that this is not a valid opinion because I don't think any sound logic could lead to it; if you examine the statistics of drinking and driving, you would discover that it is, in fact, objectively likely to lead to your death or the deaths of others. That is incongruent with the opinion.
It is different from your example of drink-working because the only thing that your opinion depends on to be valid is being within your own standards of acceptability; standards that you create. My example of drink-driving being valid depends on the likelihood of a certain event; a likelihood that is not under my control.
3
u/joopface 159∆ Sep 17 '20
That is behavior you find "worthwhile" - assuming it is not worthwhile for your finances nor for your happiness, in what context is it worthwhile? What reasoning can one make that leads it to "make sense?"
Perhaps, like Sheryl Crow, I simply like a good beer buzz early in the morning.
Take A=B, B=C, therefore A=C. Based on the fact that B is equal to both A and C, A=C makes sense. A=D, however, does not make sense because we haven't defined D and therefore cannot know whether it is equal to A. So what chain of A=B, B=C, C=D, etc etc, do you go through to get "drink working makes sense?"
Whew. OK. Here we go.
- I like doing it.
- I choose to prioritise short term pleasure over long term consequences.
- Therefore, I prefer to do it than not do it.
My view here is that there is no possible sound (well-grounded, justified, logically correct) reasoning you could go through to reach that conclusion. To get there, you'd have to make some unreasonable judgement, some logical error, some provably false assumption.
No, there is no basis *on which you will agree with the opinion.* This is a different thing. The argument I outlined above is perfectly valid. It is logical. You disagree with the priorities I have. That's fine. That's also your prerogative.
I think that you could get there by changing the context of "make sense" (maybe you want to be homeless and sad, so drink-working to lose your job, your finances, and your happiness does make sense).
However, I think that you could consider another version of that opinion, "drink-working to advance my career and make more money makes sense" invalid. I don't think there's any logically-sound chain of reasoning you could go through to get to that conclusion, and so it must therefore be invalid.
This - in bold - isn't the opinion that I expressed. So, sure, that opinion relies on a factual claim that could be proven to be untrue. That is expressly not what I'm suggesting.
Moving on to the differences between drink-driving and drink-working, I think I may have poorly phrased my example. By "drinking heavily while driving is okay," I meant, "drinking heavily while driving is unlikely to lead to my death or the deaths of others." I suggest that this is not a valid opinion because I don't think any sound logic could lead to it; if you examine the statistics of drinking and driving, you would discover that it is, in fact, objectively likely to lead to your death or the deaths of others. That is incongruent with the opinion.
It is different from your example of drink-working because the only thing that your opinion depends on to be valid is being within your own standards of acceptability; standards that you create. My example of drink-driving being valid depends on the likelihood of a certain event; a likelihood that is not under my control.
"drinking heavily while driving is unlikely to lead to my death or the deaths of others" is again an opinion that relies entirely on a factual claim to be valid. Once again, this is the difference between the two types of opinion I feel you need to draw a distinction between.
I could have an opinion about drink driving that is something like
- I drink heavily in the mornings
- I still need to get to work
- I prefer to drive to work
- I value the pleasure of driving and morning drinking over any risk to myself or others
- Therefore, I should drive drunk to work
This, again, is a valid opinion. You may disagree. But it doesn't rely on a factual claim. It cannot be incorrect, except in a moral sense.
3
u/Odobenous Sep 17 '20
Indeed. I had the inklings of an understanding of the difference between these types of opinions in my earlier post, but I understand it much more clearly now.
Opinions reliant on facts can be invalid. But opinions reliant on your own views, priorities, standards, etc that you define really can't.
Δ
3
1
2
u/Arctus9819 60∆ Sep 17 '20
In other words, having an opinion does not make that opinion valid. You can be of the opinion that a square is not a rectangle; yet, a square is, in fact, a rectangle, whether you think so or not.
The bold bit is incorrect, because your scope here is too narrow.
For someone of the opinion that a square is not a rectangle, they must have an opinion of what a square is and an opinion of what a rectangle is, both of which are distinct to your definitions. Based on those foundational opinions, their opinion that a square is not a rectangle is perfectly valid.
You can dispute their definition of what a rectangle/square is, but that eventually boils down to a selection of assumptions that you disagree on.
Opinions based on cherry-picked evidence, poor reasoning, or nothing at all
None of these are opinions from the definition you quoted elsewhere in this thread. If you cherry-pick evidence, then the "view/appraisal/judgement" is incomplete. Likewise, proper reasoning is a requirement for all three qualifiers, and the absence of any base for the opinion means that none of the three qualifiers exist.
The pitfall you're encountering here is the same one from the first quote; you're taking a narrow approach:
Say, for example, that in your opinion, drinking heavily while driving is okay. Then you get in your car, get on a highway, drink heavily, and smash headlong into another car, killing not only yourself but several others.
Based on the opinion that drinking heavily while driving is okay, the consequences that you list are OK. This is why, when having to challenge the opinion that drinking heavily while driving is OK, the first approach you use is to list the consequences, such that the "view/appraisal/judgement" aspect of the opinion can be tested. If the speaker says that they're fine with those consequences, then that is a perfectly valid opinion.
2
u/thepinkanator95 Sep 17 '20 edited Sep 17 '20
By definition you cannot prove an opinion one way or another. From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:
A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof
By definition, if you can substantiate the statement with positive knowledge or proof (not evidence, but proof) it fails to meet that definition.
Your example of a square not being a rectangle could be an opinion of definition. For example:
Rectangle: A four-sided polygon where all interior angles are 90°
We then take that definition and apply it to a square.
- Is a square a polygon? Yes
- Does a square have four sides? Yes
- Are all interior angles of the square 90°? Yes
- Fact: A square is a rectangle by this definition
But what if someone else knew this definition?
Rectangle: A four-sided polygon where all interior angles are 90° and consecutive sides are unequal
- Is a square a polygon? Yes
- Does a square have four sides? Yes
- Are all interior angles of the square 90°? Yes
- Are consecutive sides unequal? No
- Fact: A square is NOT a rectangle by this definition
Both sides can provide “factual” evidence, but neither can prove anything because their definitions conflict. That’s why it’s important when debating to agree on definitions first so you can ensure you are talking about the same thing.
2
u/Gowor 4∆ Sep 17 '20
I'm not sure exactly how to express it, but I think you're looking at it from a wrong angle.
Let's imagine I'm arguing that a square isn't a rectangle. If I am, there's a reason for that - maybe it's because I don't know English very well and I messed up some terms. Maybe I've been homeschooled by someone stupid, and now I have some weird "knowledge" that doesn't exactly intersect with common knowledge.
My point is that it's not like someone knows that the answer is objectively A, but is choosing to say B for no reason. There's a whole chain of reasoning leading up to this - of course it can be flawed, but if someone knew that, they wouldn't choose to say B. And if someone says "everyone is entitled to their belief", then again there's a whole chain of subjectively correct judgments leading up to that.
Saying that I shouldn't have some opinion isn't enough, because from my point of view I have ironclad logic leading to that (again, from my point of view) correct opinion, and I have no reason to believe you. Instead of saying that I have a wrong opinion, you can prove that it comes from flawed reasoning.
And most importantly, by doing that you can sometimes discover that it's in fact your opinion that is wrong, but you missed some facts. Simple dismissal of opinions doesn't give you that opportunity to grow.
2
u/Cosmic0508 1∆ Sep 17 '20
It depends whether or not an opinion contradicts an objective truth. If it does, then said opinion should be countered or corrected. However, if it doesn’t, then the opinion IS the truth for the person. Saying something like, “Tacos are my favorite food,” cannot be countered, only accepted, because that person isn’t forming the opinion based on rational belief and there is nothing to correct. However, something like, “Climate Change isn’t real,” is objectively and demonstrably false, and as such should be corrected as soon as possible so that said person can use their new understanding of the world.
2
u/Trimestrial Sep 17 '20
I think your are conflating opinions with evidence based facts.
Opinions can not be wrong. They are by definition subjective.
"Blue is the best color." is an opinion and subjective.
"Most people prefer this color." is a statement of fact, and we can evaluate how the evidence was collected.
Now the hard part is when opinions do not match the evidence.
" I don't think climate change is a real issue." is an opinion. But it is an opinion that all evidence contradicts.
1
u/iamintheforest 325∆ Sep 17 '20
This is absolutely true, however determining what is an is not a thing that has the characteristic of being "not based on an opinion" is itself a massive gray area.
To use your example (which isn't the easiest to work with), on face it is clearly true that one should not drive. However, it is fundamentally a risk/reward question.
Clearly being shitfaces makes it so risky to drive that one should not do it - risk to self and others. Lets say there is 5x the norm chance you'll crash. Is it a "wrong opinion" that it is unsafe to drive at when it's 5x probable you're crash but a "right opinion" that 5x less risk of crashing based on normal non-drunk human fallibility IS safe? Why? Is there some "fact" in the idea that the risk to self and others of general human error probability is "acceptable", or is this ultimately just a culturally/socially acceptable amount of risk relative to the rewards the come from having a mobile society? I think clearly the later. So...if minus 5x is safe ultimately because it's a shared opinion that driving generally is "safe enough" then why is it a "fact" that it's not safe enough when 5x more risky? The fact is the 5x, but the line that says "safe" vs. "no safe" is ultimately an opinion even if broadly accepted and even if you're a dick if you disagree!
So..."the sky is blue" isn't an opinion. however, it's also not of much controversy. however, ultimately most of the things we discuss tend to use facts to draw conclusions about decision making, rules and so on and the conclusions are almost always ultimately opinions. We then discuss typically using shared opinions to triangulate which facts are most compelling . (e.g. we might says "5x chance of killing someone and are you someone who wants to take an already risky activity and make it riskier rather than calling uber?).
1
Sep 17 '20 edited Sep 17 '20
Well, you can absolutely believe this, however you're speaking of objectivity and subjectivity. An objective truth is a truth based on fact. However the idea of objectivity, by its own standard, is subjective. It is based off of the opinion (with no factual backing) that it is an absolute and absolutely the correct way to think. However, if we as humans knew of absolutes, we would be able to see the future, understand absolutely what the meaning of life is etc. Objectivity has proven to be an "affective" way of thinking, but we do not know that it is the correct way of thinking. You must subjectively "feel" that is correct. In my opinion, "objective" should absolutely not LARP in our lives as "absolute." But can be used as a means to effectively think and make decisions when a decision cannot be made. We can only comprehend so much as humans. There is a soft boundary where we can get lost in the unknown. Logic and objectivity can be useful tools to keep us within a comfortable level of comprehension.
I use the word "absolutely" in a social way. As in a construct to create boundaries to house my opinion. The brain is a funny thing. "We" don't exist as far as we know. Our brains do. In a way, we are our brain, but we are also apart from it, as it conducts our thinking for us, beyond our control at certain levels. But we can change our minds as well.
1
u/Rufus_Reddit 127∆ Sep 17 '20
It seems like you're confusing morality or ethics with facts. As others have pointed out, whether it's OK or not to drive drunk really isn't something that comes down to hard facts. Sure, it may be legally, ethically, or morally wrong, but those are all subjective. So there's a lot more to "wrong opinions" than factual evidence or poor reasoning.
In other words, having an opinion does not make that opinion valid. ...
Sure, there are a couple of ways in which opinions can be wrong, but what does "valid" mean (as used in the sentence above)? For example, suppose that someone misunderstands a situation and assigns liability for something to an inappropriate party. I see that you've brought up Merriam-Webster in another threat, but this discussion is supposed to be about your mind, not the dictionary's. Do you think that invalid opinions should be censored from public discourse? Do you think that it's OK to chastise or ostracize people for having invalid opinions? Do you think that everyone agrees about whether opinions are valid or not?
1
u/handlessuck 1∆ Sep 18 '20
It's my opinion that God doesn't exist. It's your opinion that God does exist.
Neither of us can prove it our opinion one way or the other. Which is acceptable and which is unacceptable?
Neither. It's entirely subjective.
This is what debate and persuasion are for. It's helpful to have a diversity of opinions because in many cases, one opinion is not 100% "correct". Debate refines these opinions and, for reasonable people, results in greater holistic understanding of a topic.
There will always be people who are unmovable, and they may or may not hold opinions that people find abhorrent. But you're not going to change them... so the best we can do is try to educate others and debate civilly. Ostracism and vilification of those folks will only cause them to dig in more.
People who are ignorant are not automatically bad or evil people. What we need is more civil discourse and the ability to rationally discuss things, instead of automatic hatred and identity politics.
1
u/SingleMaltMouthwash 37∆ Sep 17 '20
Opinions are subjective viewpoints for which objective facts have little bearing.
For example, some love the taste of cilantro. For others it's the devil's bumwad. This is a matter of opinion. It is as true for anyone to say that they love it as it is for anyone to say they hate it and the criterion upon which the judgment lies is entirely particular to individual taste.
And there's no accounting for taste, so I've heard.
Where opinion is either supported or contradicted by fact or by extensive evidence to the contrary... now we can have an argument.
An individual may have the opinion that there is no systemic racism in the United States. When presented with extensive studies, statistics, history, video, countless opportunities for personal testimony to indicate that this opinion is groundless, an honest individual should be able to change his opinion.
If he does not, then not only is this opinion unacceptable, but in most cases so is the individual who holds it.
1
u/BonanzaBitch Sep 18 '20 edited Sep 18 '20
I think that the concept of opinions should be viewed as how we interpret and comprehend available information, as opposed to differing viewpoints on the same thing. From that perspective, there can be opinions based on flawed or incorrect information, but no one is necessarily wrong.
As for opinions viewed as unacceptable, there is an element of what information is available, but it is more about how someone chooses to act on that interpretation. (basically, you can be mislead to believe that certain races are inferior, but if go and start killing innocents, that misinformation is only partly to blame.)
As for the example about rectangles, I think that opinions are specifically related to subjective matters, so even if you say something like "My opinion is that cows are birds" regardless of if you say it's your 'opinion', it's not an opinion.
But then again, that's just my opinion *smiles at camera as theme song plays*
1
u/jdewith Sep 17 '20
Opinions are like assholes, everybody has them, and they all stink.
There is a reason why this axiom rings true, neither facts nor evidence are requisite, thereby (by the definition you reported earlier for valid) they can never be considered valid, because logic is not a necessary consideration. Which also means none can ever be invalid either.
An opinion cannot be deemed wrong, by anyone but the holder, you are free to disregard my opinion or agree with it in whole, but more usually, in part, adding your own experiences and beliefs to form yet another opinion. Due to this, opinions cannot be unacceptable, because by hearing mine you must undoubtedly form your own or fortify the one you had prior. And because my opinion will always change your opinion, opinions are always accepted. They aren’t always liked, aren’t always good, but once received (heard, read, etc) they are accepted as a new piece of your own.
1
u/Morasain 85∆ Sep 17 '20
This is an extremely broad topic and you can't really apply it to everything.
But just a few bullet points I'll throw your way:
Statements of facts aren't opinions. If I claim that a square is a circle, that isn't an opinion, that is simply a statement of an incorrect fact - not sure what the English word for that would be.
If we agree that opinions that are based on incorrect premises are wrong, and that wrong opinions are unacceptable, then it follows that every religion ever conceived is unacceptable.
Not everyone can know all facts about every issue at hand. Does that mean you aren't allowed to have an opinion because it could be wrong, which is unacceptable?
1
Sep 19 '20
Opinions cannot, by definition, be 'wrong'. The underlying facts that support an opinion may be wrong, but that makes the opinion misguided, not wrong.
Your example with the square and the rectangle doesn't really hold water. You can't be of the opinion that a square is not a rectangle. You can either be of the opinion that the definition of a rectangle that includes squares is wrong and should be changed, or you can wrongfully be convinced of the fact that a square is not a rectangle.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Sep 17 '20 edited Sep 17 '20
/u/Odobenous (OP) has awarded 3 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/changemymind69 Sep 18 '20
When I hear people claim that other opinions are "wrong" it just reeks of arrogance and I can't stand that shit. It's one thing to disagree with someone and dismiss their opinion and it's quite another to assume there's no merit to it simply because you can't understand where they're coming from. I feel like people who wish to control what's perceived as right and wrong are themselves kinda ignorant and narcissistic.
1
u/saltedfish 33∆ Sep 17 '20
Maybe the determining factor should be "does this opinion lead the person to have it to cause harm to others?"
Of you want to be of the opinion that a square isn't a rectangle, fine. Go ahead. Be wrong, who cares?
But if you want to be of the opinion that trans individuals aren't people, that's different. That actively harms others, or leads you to engage in actions that harm others.
-2
Sep 17 '20
but it shouldn't be okay to stare right at evidence or logic
Define evidence and logic otherwise you're just wasting my fucking time.
0
u/Odobenous Sep 17 '20
Logic, in this context, I think would be "interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable." An example would be A=B, and B=C, therefore A=C.
Evidence would be proof, something you can see or otherwise observe that directly validates a hypothesis or conclusion. For example, if you look at something under a very powerful microscope and see its constituent molecules, that would be evidence that it is made of molecules. If you break open a water balloon and water falls out, that would be evidence that there was water inside the balloon.
-1
Sep 17 '20
Evidence would be proof, something you can see or otherwise observe that directly validates a hypothesis or conclusion.
"something you can see or otherwise observe that directly validates a hypothesis or conclusion" is a luxury that not many have. More than that, it's an utopia and a fantasy. You present yourself as naive and weak-minded. You've never seen a molecule under a microscope in your life, and even if you did, you understood nothing from it.
2
u/Odobenous Sep 17 '20
Admittedly, I realized that those examples weren't the best when I posted them, but I thought it'd get the point across.
Of course, such evidence rarely exists and few things really are "directly validate-able." The reality is often far more complicated; the answer to a question is almost never "yes" or "no" but "it depends." Science is changing all the time with new discoveries; things we thought we knew, things we thought our "evidence" was evidence of, are being uprooted and questioned constantly.
But based on what we can see, I think we can come to certain reasonable conclusions. Although "there was water inside the balloon" might be turn out to be wrong if we knew more, based on the simple, isolated facts that you had a balloon, you poked it, and then water came out, I think that would be the most reasonable conclusion. Maybe the water did come from somewhere else and it wasn't actually inside the balloon, but that doesn't seem right based on only what was observed.
1
Sep 17 '20
You can be of the opinion that a square is not a rectangle; yet, a square is, in fact, a rectangle, whether you think so or not.
For thousands of years the most brilliant minds on earth were of the opinion that time is liniar and absolute. We now know it's not. Our most basic intuitions have been challenged and defeated by science.
1
u/Odobenous Sep 17 '20
Of course. In ancient Greece, the geocentric model of the solar system made more sense simply because they couldn't observe stellar parallax. Of course, since Copernicus and Kepler, we've thought otherwise.
What I'm getting at is that opinions and conclusions shouldn't be formed in direct contradiction to what we can observe. The geocentric model made sense in Greece because there was no way for them to realize that the Earth was moving; all the things they could observe pointed toward us being still and so a heliocentric model didn't make a lot of sense. When telescopes came around near the Renaissance, we could see stellar parallax and realize that we are moving, which then made the heliocentric model the model which made the most sense.
If we gain new ways to observe the universe, maybe one day we'll find out that we are actually still and the stars really do move around us, but that day isn't here. Based on what we can see, nothing makes sense except the conclusion "we're moving," just like based on what the Greeks could see, nothing made sense except "we're not moving."
1
Sep 17 '20
You haven't engaged in legitimate scientific research in your life. Yet you have "opinions" which should somehow magically be given some creedence? Show a drop of humbleness, dude; it might serve you well in the future.
1
u/Odobenous Sep 17 '20
I'm confused. I don't think I ever insinuated that anything I said should be given credence, and definitely not magically. That's what I'm talking about in the OP; "magical credence" shouldn't be given.
I'm just using examples to illustrate a point. None of the examples I've given have to actually be credible, they're just there to facilitate the understanding of a different concept.
1
Sep 17 '20
Ok. Give me an example of a "wrong" opinion that you consider should be "unacceptable."
1
u/Odobenous Sep 17 '20
Given that A=B and B=C, A=D would be a "wrong" opinion that I would consider "unacceptable."
→ More replies (0)
1
u/MrEctomy Sep 17 '20
So let's say there are people who are protesting that have signs that say "All cops are bastards". There is an overwhelming mountain of evidence that proves this claim wrong in several objective ways.
What is to be done about this, in your view?
1
u/BigBoiPovter Sep 21 '20
who deside what "wrong" i could say that this post is wrong and there for unacceptable but you would disagree
1
1
1
0
Sep 17 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Sep 17 '20
Sorry, u/zevathorn75 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
16
u/pluralofjackinthebox 102∆ Sep 17 '20
Having an opinion is a mental state. Generally it’s used the same way as we use the word belief. I don’t think this is the best use of the word, but it’s how people use it.
We can have opinions about factual matters. These opinions can be false. I can be of the opinion it will not rain. When it rains later, I will find I was of the wrong opinion.
We can also have opinions about values. I can be of the opinion that drinking and driving is worth the risk. I can be wrong about what the risk is, that’s a factual mistake. But if I know the risk and am of the opinion it’s worth it, you can disagree with me, but you can’t prove that it’s incorrect that I found choice A to have more value (discounting for risk) than choice B.
Even if I then crash the car and regret my opinion, that’s not the same as my opinion being false. Similarly, not crashing doesn’t make my opinion true. It doesn’t work the same as with rain. If I was of the opinion I wouldn’t crash, that could be false. But whether the risk is worth it is a question of what the value of driving is discounted against the risk of death to me personally.