Opinions - everyone has one. Are they all valid?

[Business]

All opinions valid?

You know, that's a good question. I don't debate much or get into very many arguments over things that require an opinion. An opinion is like when two girls go clothes shopping and ask each other how they look in their new outfits. Neither one is definitively right (at least at a man's point of view), but, perhaps, to the girls, they certainly know that they're right.

An opinion isn't generally considered a fact and isn't authoritative. Opinions are found a lot in politics and politics isn't really a science of accuracy at any length and doesn't operate on truth and data (except at the polls), but even then, votes get periwinkled a lot, so really, where does truth and fact really exist in politics?

Opinions are often used as underhanded deviations and masked insults or tactical conversation devices to steer the subject or arm-wrestle with it. I don't really know how to answer this without saying that opinions are for girls.

 

[ronburgundy]

The very concept of "valid" exist to differentiate ideas as being valid or invalid. The word only has meaning if some ideas are not valid, much like the word "average" only has meaning if somethings are above and some below it. Thus, it as nonsensical to say "all ideas are valid", as to say "all people are above average".

As for psychological states that are merely feelings/preferences about things rather than claims about a reality beyond ones own feelings, those are neither valid nor invalid. They simply are emotional states of an organism. To say feelings are either valid or invalid is as nonsensical as saying "It is invalid to be 5 foot 10 inches tall."

Where it get more complicated is when a person has feelings that are produced by fact-relevant assumptions they are makings, such as "I don't like GM foods, because they are unsafe." The feeling of "don't like" is not itself invalid or valid, but its a feeling based upon an idea that maybe invalid or valid.

As for town council meetings, the problem with throwing out people with "invalid" ideas is that the power to decide what is valid is always in the hands of authorities with personal biases to go against reasoned thought in making that determination. Unless every meeting is getting bogged down with batshit crazy nonsense, it's probably best to just let the nutjobs have their say.

 

[bilby]

The very concept of "valid" exist to differentiate ideas as being valid or invalid. The word only has meaning if some ideas are not valid, much like the word "average" only has meaning if somethings are above and some below it. Thus, it as nonsensical to say "all ideas are valid", as to say "all people are above average".

As for psychological states that are merely feelings/preferences about things rather than claims about a reality beyond ones own feelings, those are neither valid nor invalid. They simply are emotional states of an organism. To say feelings are either valid or invalid is as nonsensical as saying "It is invalid to be 5 foot 10 inches tall."

Where it get more complicated is when a person has feelings that are produced by fact-relevant assumptions they are makings, such as "I don't like GM foods, because they are unsafe." The feeling of "don't like" is not itself invalid or valid, but its a feeling based upon an idea that maybe invalid or valid.

As for town council meetings, the problem with throwing out people with "invalid" ideas is that the power to decide what is valid is always in the hands of authorities with personal biases to go against reasoned thought in making that determination. Unless every meeting is getting bogged down with batshit crazy nonsense, it's probably best to just let the nutjobs have their say.

... and then to explain how they are wrong.

The freedom to express an opinion must include the freedom of others to debunk nonsensical opinions; and it is the duty of all who care for our technological society to stand up and oppose opinions that are founded in factual error.

Too often people say "I have the right to my opinion", but mean "I demand that my opinions are not criticised". The former is true; but the latter is highly dangerous.

 

[rousseau]

Counter-intuitively, those who use phrases like 'I have the right to my opinion' are usually the least likely to be influenced by their opinion being debunked. I have a vague recollection of a study done, I believe on anti-vaxxers, that presenting them with sound science that contradicted their opinion actually entrenched their false beliefs further.

People almost always hate being wrong, and it's the one's who are wrong the most often who don't have the mental faculties to objectively analyse a viewpoint. If you try to influence them without opening the door first, usually you're just going to make them mad and lose a friend.

I've even found that sometimes you don't even have to disagree with the person, at times it just takes replying to them to have them dig in their heels. They sense they're being attacked without actually trying to understand what you're saying and write it all off.

Anyway, this is just all to say that debate isn't always as clear cut as simply contradicting someone, when you're thinking about impact.

 

[braces_for_impact]

No, you're not entitled to your opinion.

 

[bigfield]

No, you're not entitled to your opinion.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.

The people whining about their right to an opinion are typically those least capable of formulating a sound argument.

 

[fromderinside]

Well there you go bigfield. You provide an opinion which can be framed. If one lives in a free society where individuals are treated as equals then one is entitled to one's opinion.

That is enough for today, or, QED.

 

[bigfield]

Well there you go bigfield. You provide an opinion which can be framed. If one lives in a free society where individuals are treated as equals then one is entitled to one's opinion.

Criticising or disparaging a person's opinion does not deny their entitlement to said opinion.

Why do people keep conflating freedom of expression with freedom from criticism?

 

[fromderinside]

Sorry. I didn't mean to soften your disparagement.

 

[ronburgundy]

The very concept of "valid" exist to differentiate ideas as being valid or invalid. The word only has meaning if some ideas are not valid, much like the word "average" only has meaning if somethings are above and some below it. Thus, it as nonsensical to say "all ideas are valid", as to say "all people are above average".

As for psychological states that are merely feelings/preferences about things rather than claims about a reality beyond ones own feelings, those are neither valid nor invalid. They simply are emotional states of an organism. To say feelings are either valid or invalid is as nonsensical as saying "It is invalid to be 5 foot 10 inches tall."

Where it get more complicated is when a person has feelings that are produced by fact-relevant assumptions they are makings, such as "I don't like GM foods, because they are unsafe." The feeling of "don't like" is not itself invalid or valid, but its a feeling based upon an idea that maybe invalid or valid.

As for town council meetings, the problem with throwing out people with "invalid" ideas is that the power to decide what is valid is always in the hands of authorities with personal biases to go against reasoned thought in making that determination. Unless every meeting is getting bogged down with batshit crazy nonsense, it's probably best to just let the nutjobs have their say.

... and then to explain how they are wrong.

The freedom to express an opinion must include the freedom of others to debunk nonsensical opinions; and it is the duty of all who care for our technological society to stand up and oppose opinions that are founded in factual error.

Too often people say "I have the right to my opinion", but mean "I demand that my opinions are not criticised". The former is true; but the latter is highly dangerous.

Agreed. Not only is criticism of opinions acceptable, it should be highly encouraged and viewed as part of people's civic duty to challenge any publicly aired notions that are countered by either direct fact or reasoned argument. On matters of public policy, such criticism should be encouraged even when it is likely to hurt the person's feelings or viewed as "offensive", such as when opinions are backed by personal anecdotes involving tragic outcomes or by religious sentiment.

Most accusations of being impolite or offensive are made by those trying to protect bad ideas from deserved criticism.

 

[Malintent]

"valid" is the lowest bar possible in evaluating a statement.

It is akin to saying, "no grammatical errors".

The following statement is valid: I think that steal plated potatoes grow on battleships when it rains.

so saying that any opinion is valid is not saying much of anything at all.

Here is an example of an invalid opinion: Green music of and six is up

If it is coherent, regardless of how stupid, it is "valid".

 

[none]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemological_anarchism

Epistemological anarchism
...
Feyerabend felt that science started as a liberating movement, but over time it had become increasingly dogmatic and rigid, and therefore had become increasingly an ideology, and, despite its successes, science had started to attain some oppressive features, and it was not possible to come up with an unambiguous way to distinguish science from religion, magic, or mythology.
...

 

[bilby]

Opinions are like arseholes - everyone has one, and usually they are full of shit.

 

[untermensche]

Opinions are like arseholes - everyone has one, and usually they are full of shit.

That's a pleasant opinion.

Opinions, everybody has one because everyone has been exposed to a unique set of experience.

And in most of life all opinions are equal.

In the small part of life where we know about things mere opinion is worthless.

 

[bilby]

Opinions are like arseholes - everyone has one, and usually they are full of shit.

That's a pleasant opinion.

Opinions, everybody has one because everyone has been exposed to a unique set of experience.

And in most of life all opinions are equal.

In the small part of life where we know about things mere opinion is worthless.

How would you know?

 

[iolo]

The difficulty is that an awful lot of people have grown so idle that they can't be bothered to look at the evidence - they are far to busy being 'busy' playing computer games in working time - which enables right wing crooks and scoundrels to provide them with readymade drivel to believe instead.

 

[untermensche]

That's a pleasant opinion.

Opinions, everybody has one because everyone has been exposed to a unique set of experience.

And in most of life all opinions are equal.

In the small part of life where we know about things mere opinion is worthless.

How would you know?

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.

 

[bilby]

How would you know?

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.

Thank you for your opinion, and for demonstrating the truth of my comment.

 

[untermensche]

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.

Thank you for your opinion, and for demonstrating the truth of my comment.

It could be objectified.

Take you for instance. About 0.000000000000001% is some fact. Usually misunderstood. I did the math.

The rest bad opinion.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The difficulty is that an awful lot of people have grown so idle that they can't be bothered to look at the evidence - they are far to busy being 'busy' playing computer games in working time - which enables right wing crooks and scoundrels to provide them with readymade drivel to believe instead.

The difficulty is a lot of people think they are magically smarter that they see some hidden truth that everyone else is missing.