blogs_blog_39

Hey, that's My wording (Kinda) at the top!

 

P.S. Why havent you replied to my PM?

 

P.P.S. I like the Bahrag Because they looked like Demonic Dinosaurs to tell the truth.

 

P.P.P.S. I am right an Opinion is: An opinion is a person's ideas and thoughts towards something. It is an assessment, judgment or evaluation of something. An opinion is not a fact, because opinions are either not falsifiable, or the opinion has not been proven or verified.

so an opinion cannot be wrong, Ha!

Anoobus--I will reply to the lastest PMs in my inbox later. Been busy.

 

It is a fact that opinions can be wrong. Consider this: It is my opinion that opinions can be wrong. Am I wrong?

 

Or consider if someone said this: "It is my opinion that Anoobus doesn't like the Bahrag." Would they be wrong? Obviously, that person would be wrong, because you just said you did like them.

 

 

Also, notice that the definition you quoted confirms that opinions can be wrong. It says "Opinions are not facts"--only facts cannot be wrong.

 

It also says "opinions are either not falsifiable, or the opinion has not been proven or verified." Not falsifiable does not mean "correct"--it means there's no known way to figure out one way or the other whether it is. This happens sometimes, as I explain in the Guide, when there is not enough to evidence to prove for sure one way or the other. "Not proven or verified" means that, in fact, it is possible for it to be wrong. Otherwise, there would be no need to prove it.

 

BTW, that definition is close to the official dictionary.com one I quote in the Guide (orange link, sig). I recommend reading the Opinion section there.

Here he goes again...

 

As a matter of interesting items, I think that even facts can be wrong. For thousands of years, people thought the the Law of Spontaneous Generation was true. It was a 'proven fact'.

 

And then Louis Pastuer sunk it like the Titantic.

 

That is correct, Wysp--what is considered a "fact" is that which is 100% agreed (or 99.9999% lol; you get the idea) at any given time. With opinions, however, there isn't enough evidence for everybody to agree 100%, so the presence of some people who disagree with the idea makes it an opinion, rather than a fact. Also note, of course, people can hold opinions that are correct and do happen to be considered facts. Don't think this means opinions are always wrong, lol.

 

Also, don't make the mistake of thinking there aren't people who still don't dispute facts--but those would fall into the 1% or so, and unless they provide reasoning that logically argues against the fact (rather than just doubting it, which is fine), that isn't considered to debunk the fact. As one example, a few people have posted doubts about the 2001 Rahi's poor sales. Yet the poor sales are a fact based in real sales results that cannot logically be denied--the doubts indicate honest lack of knowledge, rather than evidence against its "factness."

 

Some facts, however, cannot be reasonably argued with, even as we learn more about the universe, such as the fact that opinions can be wrong. (Because logic itself proves this, with the example in the above reply to Anoobus, and logic is the tool used to determine what is considered fact at any given time. It's impossible to argue the fact that opinions can be wrong, because to do so is to say that -that- opinion is wrong, which is self-defeating.)

 

That is much like the argument that there are no absolutes. It is an absolute fact that there are absolutes, because to argue against that is to assert an absolute (that there are "absolutely" no absolutes). That's a commonly seen example of inarguable facts. However, these are rare, heh.

 

 

In laymen's terms, it's simplest to think of facts as things that are definately true, as far as anybody can know.

I disagree...

 

Wait. No. Sorry, just so used to throwing that out there.

 

I agree. There we are!

 

I'd agree that facts themselves aren't always right either, but that's what makes something a fact. A perceived fact can be wrong, but an actual fact cannot.

 

Give or take an ultimatum in there or two.

 

<<DV>>

Glad you agree, DV. Yep, good way to sum that up.

Wouldn't it be something else then and not an opinion? What if a person see different coulors and to then the sky actually is orange?

Uh, oh. Bones is at it again.

 

And I must agree with the above post; a colorblind person can say that the sky is orange because, to him, the sky is orange. Of course, he could read every book that says the sky is blue, but I will make the assumption that he is illiterate and cannot read.

 

Also, I must point out a very helpful tool to both defencive and offensive debators, one I have used time and time again: When you are being debated and are being pounded or resisted, the best move to make (besides surrender) is to debate yourself. That way, one can see through one's own shield.

 

~EW~

Wouldn't it be something else then and not an opinion? What if a person see different coulors and to then the sky actually is orange?

XD! You have no idea how ironic it is that you brought that up, because when I was a little kid I wondered the same thing (not sure why, really, just did), and the subject fascinated me.

 

The short answer, that you could figure out with out thinking about your example at all, was that your example doesn't fall under an "I like" statement, therefore it still falls within logic. Therefore it still could possibly be wrong. Therefore, it could still be an opinion.

 

The long answer is that for them, hypothetically, what you see as orange would be labeled "blue" by them, and they would not be able to distinguish the difference. They would call it blue because they were raised seeing it blue. That was what fascinated me as a kid, because I didn't know enough to know whether others could be seeing reality completely differently. In fact, though that specific example I've never heard of, there are people who are color blind, or blind only to certain colors. Some people might not be able to see blue, so sky would look something else (gray or white, I assume, not sure). Have met someone like that, in fact.

 

However. The standard English and scientific definition of blue is not dependant on what our eyes see. It's actually based on the frequency of light. So regardless of the eye design or how a brain handles it, blue light will be blue.

 

Hypothetically, again, if a person had normal eyes but had some sort of alteration that did what you said, they would know the difference and be able to say "The sky looks orange to me!" However, they wouldn't logically be right if they said "The sky is orange, whether you think it's blue or not!" Because the scientific definition of blue can be measured with objective instruments. Besides, more likely they would realize their eyes were modified, because it would be common sense that if suddenly the sky looked orange (and all other light was also changed, as would happen in that example), and everybody they asked said it was still blue, they'd realize the problem was their eyes, not the sky.

 

Think of it like putting on color glasses. If you look at a blue sky with purple-plastic, you will see purple. Did the sky change? No, just the lense you're using.

 

So, if you had the opinion "the sky is blue, objectively, but I see it differently", you would be right; if you had the opinion "the sky is orange, objectively, because I see it differently" you'd then be wrong. Maka sensa?

 

 

 

Anyways, sorry if that was too wordy. I just love that subject. Ah, fond memories of childhood. Fleeting and few as they are, Re: My motto; "Forgetting things since... um...."

 

The point is that "opinions" can be wrong. Even if an example could be shown of something that wasn't an opinion, that is irrelevant to other opinions that can be shown wrong. BTW, I figure it's worth just putting the dictionary.com definitions here for the record:

 

1) a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

2) a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

4) a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc

The first one is the one that shows that a logic-opinion can be wrong. The second one can mean both logic-opinion and taste-opinion. The third is also logic-opinion and emphasizes judgement or estimate, which are things that can be wrong. So half of #2, basically, is where taste-opinions fall in, and where some opinions can be exempt from being wrong. How do you know? If it can be stated as an "I like" statement--then it counts as taste-opinion.

 

So, basically, look at those definitions if you wanna know whether any example would be an opinion. In your example, GB, that would, quite literally, be a "view." So it would be an opinion.

 

 

 

And I must agree with the above post; a colorblind person can say that the sky is orange because, to him, the sky is orange.

Only if they say "it looks orange to me." That would be a true statement. But the statement "the sky is orange" can be falsified with scientific instruments, and it would be.

 

 

Of course, he could read every book that says the sky is blue, but I will make the assumption that he is illiterate and cannot read.

For the sake of the hypothetical, yes that's fine. Of course, he'd also talk to other people and ask, if he wasn't born that way (if he was born that way, he would think the word "blue" meant orange so there would be no issue or disagreement). But we'll assume he's highly antisocial too.

 

 

Also, I must point out a very helpful tool to both defencive and offensive debators, one I have used time and time again: When you are being debated and are being pounded or resisted, the best move to make (besides surrender) is to debate yourself. That way, one can see through one's own shield.

Thanks for that advice, EW. Could you possibly give a short example of that? Do you mean debate yourself mentally, or do you mean, when you present your argument, include possible rebuttals and your views of them? Or something else, lol? I don't want to assume I've understood it correctly...

Well, it really depends on the type of debate you are having. That part is fairly obvious. But it also depends on your reason to do it. This is why I do it

 

As you already know all too well, I am a defensive debator, and you have already pointed out the problems of that style. So to neutralize those hinderances I developed tactics to avoid the bad stuff, this being one of them. As a defensive strateist, my shield can be my most bitter enemy, as it clouds my view. Moreover, I, being a practitioner of psychology in debate, like to know how my opponent thinks and why he thought that. The self-debating tactic helps me find out just that, and that gives me a very desicive advantage, as I can tell why my opponent viewed my point the way he did. That is a great boon as you woul know what to attack next.

 

a truth-seeking or offensive debator does not have that problem in such an extent, so it would just be a valuable tool. In that case the ability of knowing what your opponent is thinking is what is desired.

 

~EW~

Thanks, E. BTW, I'd like to suggest to you that since you use that tactic, you're not as much of a defensive debater as you think, XD.

Actually, the way I see it is that they way you are describing the definition of "opinion" it seems to fit the definition of "fact" completely. That brings up another question, what's the difference between fact and opinion?

 

Yeah, I know, this is a very short post, but I make less sense when I try to make a long speech.

Actually, the way I see it is that they way you are describing the definition of "opinion" it seems to fit the definition of "fact" completely. That brings up another question, what's the difference between fact and opinion?

 

Yeah, I know, this is a very short post, but I make less sense when I try to make a long speech.

Well, I'll go ahead and answer, but I'm a little confused how anything I have posted here makes the definition of opinion sound anything like fact? I ask because if I've said something unclear, I wish to know so that I can correct it.

 

 

Opinion -- a viewpoint that cannot be 100% confirmed, with the info available. It can be wrong.

 

Fact -- a viewpoint that can be 100% confirmed, with the info available. It cannot be wrong (except for the rare instance where we get new info we could not get before (see below, though, for a note on this)).

 

 

See the difference?

 

 

What you might be thinking is what people mistake their own opinions for fact. But that is a logical fallacy on the part of the individual; it is not supported at all by what I'm saying. In fact, I'm pointing out that people make that mistake. When they think that their opinion cannot be wrong they are confusing opinion with fact. (Logic opinions, that is.)

 

In other words, if a "fact" is later found to be wrong, then it was not truly a fact, but an opinion that almost everybody confused with fact. I'd love to rant about tons of examples of this confusion in popular culture even today... but won't. Anyways, DV had summed that up well above.

 

Judge in each case; something like set sales is a fact, definately, unless of course sales reports lied or made mistakes, as an example. Something like "This set will sell poorly" is an opinion, even if it does turn out to be correct, because there's no way to be 100% certain ahead of time. Make-a sense-a?

As usual, Bones hits the nail on the head. Way to go, Bones. You presented a LOGICAL argument and left little room for disagreement.

 

Excellent... waxing philosophic. ^.^

What you might be thinking is what people mistake their own opinions for fact. But that is a logical fallacy on the part of the individual; it is not supported at all by what I'm saying. In fact, I'm pointing out that people make that mistake. When they think that their opinion cannot be wrong they are confusing opinion with fact. (Logic opinions, that is.)

The way I see it is that you are still redefining the word "opinion". An opinion isn't just being wrong. The best example that I can think of is thinking that the sky is orange which is what you might believe, even though you are wrong. that's not an opinion mistaken for a fact, that's just believing that it is fact and being wrong.

 

the first definition from dictionary.com sounds more like a hypothesis, or maybe a theory. the third looks more like someones VIEW of someone else based on what they know about them. sometimes disagreeing with a logic opinion can only be done with another.

 

The way I see it, to go by believing that opinions can be wrong may possibly lead to believing that all opinions can be wrong, no matter what type, and disagree with anything, maybe. that's a guess, it could be wrong, really.

What you might be thinking is what people mistake their own opinions for fact. But that is a logical fallacy on the part of the individual; it is not supported at all by what I'm saying. In fact, I'm pointing out that people make that mistake. When they think that their opinion cannot be wrong they are confusing opinion with fact. (Logic opinions, that is.)

The way I see it is that you are still redefining the word "opinion".

Hello, guardianoftime. I'm glad to see someone out there (and hi, McSpork!) is still reading my mostly-dead blog, XD.

 

I have not redefined anything, at least not by the standard English definitions that I pointed out. If I was "redefining", that would mean I would be making up my own definition, and using it, either for myself, or to hope that others would use it too. I do believe that that is acceptable as long as we make it clear it's only meant as our own definition; this is what my Ruthless Elegance entry was about.

 

But this entry is simply a report on what the standard definitions and the important meanings of them are, logically speaking. So no, it's not a redefinition.

 

 

 

 

An opinion isn't just being wrong.

Nobody said all opinions were wrong, lol. That would make no sense--just as little sense as saying all opinions are right.

 

To say an opinion can be wrong makes it clear that it isn't necessarily wrong. You have to put it past the logic tests to find out if it is or is not, as well as do research into the evidence for/against, etc.

 

The best example that I can think of is thinking that the sky is orange which is what you might believe, even though you are wrong.

I'm with you so far. That would be an opinion (whether it was right or wrong). It fits the definition of opinion--again, let's put the dictionary.com definitions here, both of which it fits with:

 

1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.

 

that's not an opinion mistaken for a fact, that's just believing that it is fact and being wrong.

Here you lost me. If the opinion is not "mistaken", then how can it be wrong? What you said there amounts to saying "It's not mistaken for fact, it's mistaken for fact." Because "believing it is fact and being wrong" is synonymous with being "mistaken". The dictionary.com definitions of "mistaken":

 

–noun 1. an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.

2. a misunderstanding or misconception.

–verb (used with object) 3. to regard or identify wrongly as something or someone else: I mistook him for the mayor.

4. to understand, interpret, or evaluate wrongly; misunderstand; misinterpret.

–verb (used without object) 5. to be in error.

 

All of the above, except mistaking a person, action, or calculation, apply to your example. So it is most definately an opinion mistaken as fact.

 

 

 

 

the first definition from dictionary.com sounds more like a hypothesis, or maybe a theory.

Correct; if you're using the scientific definitions of those words. Hopefully it would be a theory (as in, that has some evidence but isn't totally proven), but many people hold opinions that are merely hypotheses as well, yes.

 

 

the third looks more like someones VIEW of someone else based on what they know about them.

You mean this?

 

3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.

 

Yes, we aren't talking about that definition here; it's irrelevant to this discussion. We're not dealing with "formal expressions" in Bionicle debates, heh.

 

 

sometimes disagreeing with a logic opinion can only be done with another.

Another what? Logic opinion? Isn't that obvious? Person? I'm not sure what you mean by this. Could you explain?

 

 

 

The way I see it, to go by believing that opinions can be wrong

Not to take you out of context; I'll continue your quote in a second, but let's not forget that it isn't a matter of "to go by", as if we can just say "hey, I feel like believing opinions can be wrong". It's that logic proves that opinions definately can be wrong, so we must realize that they indeed can.

 

 

may possibly lead to believing that all opinions can be wrong

What do you mean by "can"? There's a huge difference between what you said above; which amounts to this:

 

1) "Believing that opinions are wrong"

 

and what you said here:

 

2) "Believeing that opinions can be wrong"

 

Which one do you mean? If you mean the former, it completely changes your meaning, from if you mean the latter. You used the former earlier, but now are using the latter. Which is it?

 

Nobody is arguing for the former here. Nobody's saying all opinions are wrong.

 

I am saying the latter; that opinions can be wrong. Anything that is not inherently proven (such as the statement that "There are absolutely absolutes", which proves itself true) is certainly up for debate. It's healthy for us all to realize that all our own opinions might be wrong; and so we should logically test even our own, and that way we are more likely to find the actual truth. It would not, of course, be healthy to say "eh, all opinions can be wrong, so yours must be." That would be a logical fallacy, lol. The point is, you shouldn't just assume things.

 

 

no matter what type, and disagree with anything, maybe. that's a guess, it could be wrong, really.

Again, I'm not sure what you meant by "can", and why would it be a bad thing if we all realized that any opinion can be wrong, but isn't necessarily wrong and has to be logically tested to find the truth? You're certainly not saying we should assume our own opinions are always right, are you?

 

If you mean, it could lead to believing that all opinions are wrong, then no, logically it could not. That would be an opinion that inherently defeats itself; it is an opinion therefore that declares itself wrong. It could be worded this way: "In my opinion, all opinions are wrong." See the mistake there?

 

But I'm not sure that's what you meant...

It was a bit hard to understand at first but it sure is a weird argument.

Yes my opinions are always wrong.

I agree.