Opinions - everyone has one. Are they all valid?

[Speakpigeon]

Besides the fact that this is the second time in this thread you have said the same worthless thing I don't have to explain this.

It is common knowledge.

Most of life is not reciting facts. Most is opinion.

What we eat, what we wear, what we drive, who we hang out with. All opinion. Nothing objective about any of it.

Reciting opinion doesn't make it facts. Facts are facts even if they say something you don't like.

Yes, but that I don't like some fact is also a fact, even if you don't like the fact that I insist saying I don't like this fact. Hence the current democratic conundrum.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

A thread about people's opinions on opinions. Now we have meta-opinions.

We can trade opinions without any logical problem as long as we don't pretend that one opinion could possibly contradict itself. So in effect we don't need to distinguish opinions and meta-opinions, which would be the usual motivation for introducing the "meta" prefix.

So, what could possibly be the problem in people expressing their opinions on the value of opinions in general? I can see that my opinion on my own opinions would usually be biased, but why would I be biased in discussing the value of opinions in general?

More pointedly, do you know of any alternative and practical way to people exchanging opinions? One that would be devoid of the flaws of opinion airing and opinion making?
EB

 

[iolo]

A thread about people's opinions on opinions. Now we have meta-opinions.

We can trade opinions without any logical problem as long as we don't pretend that one opinion could possibly contradict itself. So in effect we don't need to distinguish opinions and meta-opinions, which would be the usual motivation for introducing the "meta" prefix.

So, what could possibly be the problem in people expressing their opinions on the value of opinions in general? I can see that my opinion on my own opinions would usually be biased, but why would I be biased in discussing the value of opinions in general?

More pointedly, do you know of any alternative and practical way to people exchanging opinions? One that would be devoid of the flaws of opinion airing and opinion making?
EB

In most cultures, relatively civilized discussion of opinion is possible because people have tended to be in agreement, rightly or wrongly, on the facts. The rise of the internet and the possibility of hearing only those who have the same prejudices, together with the general decline in educational standards as the Right takes over, mean that the mugs are hugely vulnerable to bullshit, particularly after decades of union-busting.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

When you say valid opinion, how do you define "valid"? As oppose to what? Fraudulent? I can consider your opinion worthless and without sound foundation, but its still "valid", no?

 

[ronburgundy]

Reciting opinion doesn't make it facts. Facts are facts even if they say something you don't like.

Yes, but that I don't like some fact is also a fact, even if you don't like the fact that I insist saying I don't like this fact. Hence the current democratic conundrum.
EB

Yes, but your disliking the fact is only a fact about you, not about the fact you don't like. IOW, the factual status of the "fact" and your dislike of it are completely independent of each other. You can in fact dislike a "fact" regardless of whether it is actually a fact, and the fact can be a fact, regardless of whether you dislike it. And disliking a fact can and should (if one is to be rational) have nothing to do with whether you accept it as a fact. That in fact is the THE difference between reason and faith. Reason seeks to distinguish "liking" of a fact from accepting it, while faith conflates the two. That is what make all opinions based on faith invalid.

 

[ronburgundy]

When you say valid opinion, how do you define "valid"? As oppose to what? Fraudulent? I can consider your opinion worthless and without sound foundation, but its still "valid", no?

Valid here is being used in reference to having a sound foundation, similar to its use in deductive logic, where a conclusion is invalid if their is no sound basis to accept it, given the known priors. What definition of "valid" are you using that has no reference to the basis of the opinion? It makes little sense to think of "valid" as merely meaning that the opinion exist. Such a definition would make the statement "The opinion is valid." identical to "The opinion is." In fact, the word valid would be meaningless because no opinion could be invalid, because to have any property it would have to exist and if it exist it would be valid by that definition.

Alternatively, "valid" might be used to mean that a person has some legal "right" to the opinion, which is a completely separate issue actually referring to a subjective moral stance on freedom of thought rather than any evaluation of the opinions objective status regarding logical coherence with other opinions the person holds, and with empirical facts, and factually supported theories.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The two examples you provide are not really opinions in the same way that "green is better than purple" is an opinion. Believing that Martians cause problems with police relations is a claim about the observable world that can be tested. Given mutual agreement about the preferred outcome of surgery, there are objective answers about how to proceed if you want that outcome, which can also be tested empirically. Some opinions can't be tested empirically, such as the view that electronic music is worse than classical music, or that my cat is preferable to your canary.

Houston, we have a problem...

I take it that when you say that an outcome of surgery can be tested empirically you mean to use the inductive method: observe many cases of surgery, plot statistics and infer probabilities of a future outcome. Yes?

Well, now, let's take your cat and my canary. You say opinions on which one is preferable cannot be tested empirically. Are you sure? Me, I would say easy they can. Ask many people which they prefer of your cat or my canary, plot statistics and infer the probability that any random quidam should say he prefers your cat or he prefers my canary. Isn't that just being preferable? Or am I missing something here. And same for the music of course.

Houston? No worry, I've just fixed the problem!

Not the Hard Problem, though.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Yes, but that I don't like some fact is also a fact, even if you don't like the fact that I insist saying I don't like this fact. Hence the current democratic conundrum.
EB

Yes, but your disliking the fact is only a fact about you, not about the fact you don't like. IOW, the factual status of the "fact" and your dislike of it are completely independent of each other. You can in fact dislike a "fact" regardless of whether it is actually a fact, and the fact can be a fact, regardless of whether you dislike it. And disliking a fact can and should (if one is to be rational) have nothing to do with whether you accept it as a fact. That in fact is the THE difference between reason and faith. Reason seeks to distinguish "liking" of a fact from accepting it, while faith conflates the two. That is what make all opinions based on faith invalid.

Are you sure you took the necessary time to scan my piece properly? How does the last bit about the democratic conundrum figure in your interpretation? Oh, I guess it doesn't figure at all! A theory should explain all the relevant facts, in my opinion. Yours here doesn't seem to explain why I talked about a democratic conundrum.
EB

 

[Rayschism]

It my personal belief that everyone has the right to their beliefs and opinions, even if they want it as terrible as something as Socialism, Communism, or want to be a Nazi. Nobody has the right to impose those beliefs and opinions on to people who don't want them. It is the imposition of beliefs, through expectations and demands of conformity that causes crimes and atrocities against humanity and hurts people just for being different.

However, I do believe there are such things as invalid opinions and harmful opinions. I simply will not deal with people who have them and disregard them. I have thought about this for many years, and have worked up a small amount of criteria. I have these five criteria that tells me if an opinion or belief is harmful or invalid.

NOTE: I am speaking for myself only.

1. A proven lie, especially one that is repeated over and over.

2. Bullying and coercing people with other assorted dirty rotten tricks into submission and silence

3. Hypocrisy.

4 Ignorance.

5. An argument that is so contradictory that it undermines one's own beliefs systems.

So those are what I use. I don't know if they make any sense to you, but as for myself, they do make sense for me.