Opinions - everyone has one. Are they all valid?

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

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

 

[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.

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

Of course.

Some see rape as something good.

Some see it as something bad.

Mere opinion. No facts.

 

[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.

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

No - just that some people are educated and keep in touch with the facts. Does anyone pay you to pretend to be stupid, or is it an American perversion?

 

[ronburgundy]

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.
...

A good example of an invalid opinion, as is most of what Feyerabend and other post-modernists have had to say.

 

[Bronzeage]

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

 

[ronburgundy]

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

Of course.

Some see rape as something good.

Some see it as something bad.

Mere opinion. No facts.

You are confusing opinions about moral stances (which is nothing more than personal emotional feelings) with opinions about what the state of some reality is (IOW, the classic is/ought distinction)
Seeing something as "bad" merely expresses something about one's own emotional feelings about a things and doesn't actually assert anything about that thing that could be either true or false.

The opinion that "Rape is bad" is an expression that the speaker doesn't like rape. The person either has that feeling or not, and the concept of the feeling being valid or not is nonsensical.
In contrast, the opinion that "Defining acts A through X as criminal 'rape' and punishing the actors accordingly will aid in achieving goal Y." is an opinion about an aspect of reality that is independent of how someone feels about rape, namely the causal relation between a set of actions and a result. That opinion not only is held or not, but can be valid of invalid, depending on whether it is coherent with verified empirical facts and logically relevant theories that are supported by those facts.

 

[bilby]

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

That's not a good thing. (In my meta-meta-opinion).

 

[untermensche]

Of course.

Some see rape as something good.

Some see it as something bad.

Mere opinion. No facts.

You are confusing opinions about moral stances (which is nothing more than personal emotional feelings) with opinions about what the state of some reality is (IOW, the classic is/ought distinction)
Seeing something as "bad" merely expresses something about one's own emotional feelings about a things and doesn't actually assert anything about that thing that could be either true or false.

The opinion that "Rape is bad" is an expression that the speaker doesn't like rape. The person either has that feeling or not, and the concept of the feeling being valid or not is nonsensical.
In contrast, the opinion that "Defining acts A through X as criminal 'rape' and punishing the actors accordingly will aid in achieving goal Y." is an opinion about an aspect of reality that is independent of how someone feels about rape, namely the causal relation between a set of actions and a result. That opinion not only is held or not, but can be valid of invalid, depending on whether it is coherent with verified empirical facts and logically relevant theories that are supported by those facts.

I think you are way off here.

Moral stances ARE opinions.

I think humans have a natural empathy and that is the root of morality but feelings are not facts. Their expressions are opinions.

 

[bilby]

You are confusing opinions about moral stances (which is nothing more than personal emotional feelings) with opinions about what the state of some reality is (IOW, the classic is/ought distinction)
Seeing something as "bad" merely expresses something about one's own emotional feelings about a things and doesn't actually assert anything about that thing that could be either true or false.

The opinion that "Rape is bad" is an expression that the speaker doesn't like rape. The person either has that feeling or not, and the concept of the feeling being valid or not is nonsensical.
In contrast, the opinion that "Defining acts A through X as criminal 'rape' and punishing the actors accordingly will aid in achieving goal Y." is an opinion about an aspect of reality that is independent of how someone feels about rape, namely the causal relation between a set of actions and a result. That opinion not only is held or not, but can be valid of invalid, depending on whether it is coherent with verified empirical facts and logically relevant theories that are supported by those facts.

I think you are way off here.

Moral stances ARE opinions.

I think humans have a natural empathy and that is the root of morality but feelings are not facts. Their expressions are opinions.

Nobody cares what you think. Only what you can demonstrate to be true.

 

[untermensche]

I think you are way off here.

Moral stances ARE opinions.

I think humans have a natural empathy and that is the root of morality but feelings are not facts. Their expressions are opinions.

Nobody cares what you think. Only what you can demonstrate to be true.

You must care.

And the opinion that opinions are worthless is a worthless opinion.

 

[fromderinside]

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

That's not a good thing. (In my meta-meta-opinion).

heear hear!* Meta³⁸-opinion.

*_{^{my option}}

 

[ronburgundy]

You are confusing opinions about moral stances (which is nothing more than personal emotional feelings) with opinions about what the state of some reality is (IOW, the classic is/ought distinction)
Seeing something as "bad" merely expresses something about one's own emotional feelings about a things and doesn't actually assert anything about that thing that could be either true or false.

The opinion that "Rape is bad" is an expression that the speaker doesn't like rape. The person either has that feeling or not, and the concept of the feeling being valid or not is nonsensical.
In contrast, the opinion that "Defining acts A through X as criminal 'rape' and punishing the actors accordingly will aid in achieving goal Y." is an opinion about an aspect of reality that is independent of how someone feels about rape, namely the causal relation between a set of actions and a result. That opinion not only is held or not, but can be valid of invalid, depending on whether it is coherent with verified empirical facts and logically relevant theories that are supported by those facts.

I think you are way off here.

Moral stances ARE opinions.

I think humans have a natural empathy and that is the root of morality but feelings are not facts. Their expressions are opinions.

We seem to agree that moral stances are feelings, but the confusion is you are using the word "opinion" as though it is synonymous with a mere feeling. Only some opinions are just feelings about non-factual (e.g., moral) matters, and thus the concept of validity does not apply. However, other opinions are conclusions about factual issues that can be reached via a sound logical evaluation of the facts (and thus be valid opinions) or some less rational process tainted by emotional bias (and thus be invalid opinions).

Facts and opinions are not opposites. Facts are properties of reality and events that have occurred. Opinions are mental states the are sometimes about what is thought to be true about those properties of reality and can be consistent with the facts, but sometimes are not about any external reality at all and are just expressions of subjective emotional reactions to things (as with morality, despite nonsensical arguments by moral objectivists).

 

[ronburgundy]

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

That's not a good thing. (In my meta-meta-opinion).

Meta-opinions are the essence of all philosophy and any science of human thought.

 

[untermensche]

I think you are way off here.

Moral stances ARE opinions.

I think humans have a natural empathy and that is the root of morality but feelings are not facts. Their expressions are opinions.

We seem to agree that moral stances are feelings, but the confusion is you are using the word "opinion" as though it is synonymous with a mere feeling. Only some opinions are just feelings about non-factual (e.g., moral) matters, and thus the concept of validity does not apply. However, other opinions are conclusions about factual issues that can be reached via a sound logical evaluation of the facts (and thus be valid opinions) or some less rational process tainted by emotional bias (and thus be invalid opinions).

Facts and opinions are not opposites. Facts are properties of reality and events that have occurred. Opinions are mental states the are sometimes about what is thought to be true about those properties of reality and can be consistent with the facts, but sometimes are not about any external reality at all and are just expressions of subjective emotional reactions to things (as with morality, despite nonsensical arguments by moral objectivists).

Feelings give rise to opinions.

"I like chocolate ice cream."

An opinion based on feelings.

"I dislike child abuse." An opinion based on feelings.

I never said feelings are the same as opinions, but opinions can be based on feelings. Most are.

 

[ronburgundy]

We seem to agree that moral stances are feelings, but the confusion is you are using the word "opinion" as though it is synonymous with a mere feeling. Only some opinions are just feelings about non-factual (e.g., moral) matters, and thus the concept of validity does not apply. However, other opinions are conclusions about factual issues that can be reached via a sound logical evaluation of the facts (and thus be valid opinions) or some less rational process tainted by emotional bias (and thus be invalid opinions).

Facts and opinions are not opposites. Facts are properties of reality and events that have occurred. Opinions are mental states the are sometimes about what is thought to be true about those properties of reality and can be consistent with the facts, but sometimes are not about any external reality at all and are just expressions of subjective emotional reactions to things (as with morality, despite nonsensical arguments by moral objectivists).

Feelings give rise to opinions.

"I like chocolate ice cream."

An opinion based on feelings.

"I dislike child abuse." An opinion based on feelings.

I never said feelings are the same as opinions, but opinions can be based on feelings. Most are.

But the critical issue (that I will try one last time to explicate) is that for some issues, like whether chocolate or child abuse are good or bad), all opinions can be nothing but feelings because their is no factual claim about reality being asserted. But for other issues, like whether chocolate increases sex drive or child abuse causes mental health issues, the opinion can be rationally based and valid or emotionally based and thus invalid, because feelings are not a valid indicator of whether an idea on a factual matter is actually true.

 

[untermensche]

But the critical issue (that I will try one last time to explicate) is that for some issues, like whether chocolate or child abuse are good or bad), all opinions can be nothing but feelings because their is no factual claim about reality being asserted. But for other issues, like whether chocolate increases sex drive or child abuse causes mental health issues, the opinion can be rationally based and valid or emotionally based and thus invalid, because feelings are not a valid indicator of whether an idea on a factual matter is actually true.

It is still opinion.

What you are saying is there are different kinds of opinions.

Opinions on matters where no truth can be demonstrated and opinions on matters some have the opinion truth can be demonstrated.

 

[fromderinside]

I'm pretty sure most people who hold pro or con opinions about inoculation mediums are holding it emotionally. The problem there is the state of California which requires children be inoculated or not attend public, including charter, school be inoculated.

Fair is fair I say. If courts hold potential rioters can block access to clinics then courts can say potential disease givers need be inoculated to attend public schools.

...and white law writers say there is no emotion in law, that the law is the law and that's it.

I just wrote that to the question about whether opinions are valid in social science forum.

Where's the science?

 

[Speakpigeon]

My personal belief is that while everyone has an opinion and everyone is entitled to their opinion, not every opinion is educated, informed or worth hearing.

Recently, on different forums, I can't believe the push back I've been getting with people telling me that all opinions are valid.

One gentleman claimed that if in a heated city council meeting about police and race relations, a man who believes the Martians are causing all the problems should be heard because his opinion is valid.

Another woman reminded me that no one is qualified to know what opinions are valid and which are not.

I reminded them both that next time they're undergoing surgery, that I should tell them that their surgeon will be asking his 6 year old child how he should proceed...you know, since all opinions are valid and no one can tell which ones are worth hearing...

So? All opinions valid?

Well, I do have an opinion on this but I'm not sure it should be allowed in this context. It seems like the honest broker be allowed to decide his own remuneration.

There's one word in your otherwise decent piece which doesn't chime too well: "educated".

What was the use of being educated in pre-scientific times? What is the use of being educated in madrassas? And although modern Western education is best, it still won't provide anyone with anything like comprehensive knowledge and understanding, let alone the intelligence to process them. So, education is good but in many areas of debate it's on a part, or even less than on a part, with personal experience.

So, basically, you should have said, "not every opinion is informed" and stop there, and we would all have agreed as a matter of course.

That you didn't probably shows you are conceited about people who are less well-educated than you are, which is bad if I need to tell you.

The examples you give are also telling. These are obviously deranged people. If you can't make out nutcases from sane people who just may not be well-educated but may have worthy opinions then it's also very bad.

So, no, not all opinions are valid. What about yours?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

Feelings give rise to opinions.

"I like chocolate ice cream."

An opinion based on feelings.

"I dislike child abuse." An opinion based on feelings.

I never said feelings are the same as opinions, but opinions can be based on feelings. Most are.

But the critical issue (that I will try one last time to explicate) is that for some issues, like whether chocolate or child abuse are good or bad), all opinions can be nothing but feelings because their is no factual claim about reality being asserted. But for other issues, like whether chocolate increases sex drive or child abuse causes mental health issues, the opinion can be rationally based and valid or emotionally based and thus invalid, because feelings are not a valid indicator of whether an idea on a factual matter is actually true.

You're making an appropriate distinction but I think untermensche broadly agrees with it. However, even stating facts and arguing from them may be used to give your feeling-tainted opinion a free ride, which may be what untermensche has in mind. Suppose you make a particular factual argument. The question is this: Would you still have made the contrary argument, as you should have, if the facts had been pointing in the opposite direction? In other words, are you not shamelessly using some rational argument to give your feeling-tainted opinion a free ride?

I believe that it's what a lot of educated people do and I also believe that it's what gives rationality a bad name.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

That's not a good thing. (In my meta-meta-opinion).

Meta-opinions are the essence of all philosophy and any science of human thought.

Definitely my views are authoritative as to my own thoughts.

I have to point out too that Descartes's Cogito is not an opinion. Whether, it's philosophy is debatable. What is not is that the rest of what he said after stating the Cogito was opinion writ large, and so probably philosophical in nature. So, basically, philosophy is essentially opinion but sometimes philosophers do bring in factual considerations, although perhaps only to be better able to sneak in their opinions.
EB