Debunking Popular Myths - #1 Opinions Actually CAN Be Wrong

[Spaceman Spif]

I see what Sly is saying and yes opinions can be wrong.

Let's say:

We have Tom and Andy. These two people have never met, do not know each other at all. They are walking down the street. Andy bumps into Tom on accident. Tom flips out, pulls out a pistol and shoots Andy between the eyes killing him instantly. Plain and simple a murder has just occured. It's illegal and is an open and shut case. Tom get life in prison, no parole, blah blah blah.

So my opinion is that Tom was bumped, he had ever right to shoot Andy.

Well the majority of people would not agree with me, the law obviously does not agree with me, so quite simply that makes my opinion wrong.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

So my opinion is that Tom was bumped, he had ever right to shoot Andy.

Well the majority of people would not agree with me, the law obviously does not agree with me, so quite simply that makes my opinion wrong.

If there was no law stating that you can't shoot people, then you wouldn't be wrong. It's only because there is a rule in place that has been broken, that makes your opinion irrelevant.

"People who do this will be punished." End of discussion. When it comes to trial, the opinions of the jury come into effect to determine whether punishment is inflicted upon the individual or not, and they CAN indeed be wrong, because they weren't there and they've only got the physical evidence in front of them, combined with the witness accounts and the prosecutor/defences gift of the gab as he tries to convince you to say guilty/not guilty.

But if a jury turned around and said 'In our opinion Tom didn't shoot Andy, so not guilty' then they'd be wrong, because he did shoot him. If they said 'In our opinion, based on the evidence given, Tom is not guilty' then they wouldn't be wrong. They're simply saying, 'you have not convinced us that he is guilty.' Whether he was justified in doing it cannot be proven either way because as far as the government and law officials are concerned, there is no justification for ending another person's life. The sentence simply changes if they think you did it by accident or in self defence etc.

What's wrong is when people present opinions as fact.

"Jury Duty is a better film than Citizen Kane", see that's an opinion presented as a fact. They then need to explain why they think that, and if they bring up all of Sly's examples then the only ones that could disprove that statement, is how much money CK made over JD and how many awards either film received and it's standing in modern times. Everyone knows about the movie 'Citizen Kane', but for one have never seen or heard of 'Jury Duty' except in passing.

Things like writing, cast etc. Those are still based on opinions. It just so happens that one person was paid to give an opinion, and a vast number of other people agreed. That doesn't make the opinion right, it just means that more people have that opinion than those who don't.

If they'd said, "i've seen both films and i prefered 'Jury Duty' over 'Citizen Kane'" then that's an opinion that cannot be disproved. You can't tell that person that they were wrong when they derived more entertainment value out of watching one movie over the other.

Hmm, i go back over that i feel i was kind of all over the place, but anyway, opinions that are thought out and presented as opinions and not facts are not wrong, but statements like 'This is better than that' when reality does nothing to back that opinion up, are wrong.

It's all about how you present an opinion, that determines the validity of it.

 

[Skillz]

In my opinion The Great Khali is the best wrestler of all time.

Now I dare anyone with a straight face to tell me that I don't deserve a ridiculing for having such a stupid and clearly WRONG opinion.

Opinions can most certainly be wrong, and only the people with stupid opinions fail to grasp this.

 

[Spaceman Spif]

If there was no law stating that you can't shoot people, then you wouldn't be wrong. It's only because there is a rule in place that has been broken, that makes your opinion irrelevant.

"People who do this will be punished." End of discussion. When it comes to trial, the opinions of the jury come into effect to determine whether punishment is inflicted upon the individual or not, and they CAN indeed be wrong, because they weren't there and they've only got the physical evidence in front of them, combined with the witness accounts and the prosecutor/defences gift of the gab as he tries to convince you to say guilty/not guilty.

But if a jury turned around and said 'In our opinion Tom didn't shoot Andy, so not guilty' then they'd be wrong, because he did shoot him. If they said 'In our opinion, based on the evidence given, Tom is not guilty' then they wouldn't be wrong. They're simply saying, 'you have not convinced us that he is guilty.' Whether he was justified in doing it cannot be proven either way because as far as the government and law officials are concerned, there is no justification for ending another person's life. The sentence simply changes if they think you did it by accident or in self defence etc.

What's wrong is when people present opinions as fact.

"Jury Duty is a better film than Citizen Kane", see that's an opinion presented as a fact. They then need to explain why they think that, and if they bring up all of Sly's examples then the only ones that could disprove that statement, is how much money CK made over JD and how many awards either film received and it's standing in modern times. Everyone knows about the movie 'Citizen Kane', but for one have never seen or heard of 'Jury Duty' except in passing.

Things like writing, cast etc. Those are still based on opinions. It just so happens that one person was paid to give an opinion, and a vast number of other people agreed. That doesn't make the opinion right, it just means that more people have that opinion than those who don't.

If they'd said, "i've seen both films and i prefered 'Jury Duty' over 'Citizen Kane'" then that's an opinion that cannot be disproved. You can't tell that person that they were wrong when they derived more entertainment value out of watching one movie over the other.

Hmm, i go back over that i feel i was kind of all over the place, but anyway, opinions that are thought out and presented as opinions and not facts are not wrong, but statements like 'This is better than that' when reality does nothing to back that opinion up, are wrong.

It's all about how you present an opinion, that determines the validity of it.

You can spout all that stuff off, but you contradicted yourself again.

If there was no law stating that you can't shoot people, then you wouldn't be wrong.

You said yourself, if there was no law, it it would not be wrong. So the flip side of that is the fact there is a law, so since there is that law, then my opinion is indeed wrong. A opinion can be wrong when you are using facts. As in my scenario, the fact is, there is a law that says what Tom did is wrong and illegal, thus voided, nullifying and proving my opinion wrong.

Hell I am married, which means quite often my opinion is proved wronged. Give it a rest man, Sly has put forth too much evidence and fact in and of themselves that proved opinions can be wrong, where as you have contradicted yourself, made very few if any valid points. Sorry man, but Sly is right, opinions can be wrong.

 

[Goliath Uterus]

The "Tom shoots Andy" example really makes no sense, Spaceman. Someone can have the opinion that it's ok to shoot someone, but if they do it they'll still get tried in court for it.

In my opinion The Great Khali is the best wrestler of all time.

Now I dare anyone with a straight face to tell me that I don't deserve a ridiculing for having such a stupid and clearly WRONG opinion.

Opinions can most certainly be wrong, and only the people with stupid opinions fail to grasp this.

In a business like wrestling, there really is no way to prove someone's opinion wrong, no matter how uninformed it is. Someone could think Necro Butcher is the greatest wrestler, but that's their opinion, there is no statistical facts in wrestling that you could prove them wrong with.

 

[Soapguy]

I would agree with the original point of this thread if the word wrong was replaced with invalid. It is completely possible for a persons opinion to be completely unfounded in terms of logic, but saying a person's opinion is wrong goes against the very definition of the word opinion. There has to be some interpretation of some type of information involved. The topic the opinion is held about also has to be one that there isn't a clearly observable answer for. I find some interpretations/conclusions about things dumb or invalid, but I wouldn't feel comfortable calling them wrong. Of course, that could just be a semantics thing, but considering that we're communicating via text. . . semantics are pretty damn important.

 

[Attitude]

I would agree with the original point of this thread if the word wrong was replaced with invalid. It is completely possible for a persons opinion to be completely unfounded in terms of logic, but saying a person's opinion is wrong goes against the very definition of the word opinion. There has to be some interpretation of some type of information involved. The topic the opinion is held about also has to be one that there isn't a clearly observable answer for. I find some interpretations/conclusions about things dumb or invalid, but I wouldn't feel comfortable calling them wrong. Of course, that could just be a semantics thing, but considering that we're communicating via text. . . semantics are pretty damn important.

Good post. I completely agree with you. Invalid is a much better term to use instead of wrong.

Everybody is going to have different intepretations on things. We have things we like and don't like. We see things differently from each other. We formulate opinions on our interpretations, on what we see, and what we do and don't like. Everybody is going to agree or disagree to some point.

Opinions aren't wrong. Our opinions are our own(if that makes since). And yes as the poster I quoted they can be invalid. If we don't have all the facts or relatively new to something our opinions might be invalid, but, not wrong.

I want to say this too. Every single person on the thread and on this forum has their own opinions. I've posted on other threads and started my own. We all shared our opinions. And I've learned from other peoples opinions. There have been times when people stated something whether I agreed or not I thought or even said sometimes wow I didn't know that or look at this that way, but, now that I do I'll check it out or now I have a new perspective.

For me nobody is really ever wrong with their opinions.

 

[Rhonda Rousey's Sports Bra]

Every opinion can be wrong, because every opinion has facts behind them that can be exploited. If I said Green is the best color, I could be wrong because someone can bring up that Green is made from Blue and Yellow. If I said Red is the best color it can be proved that it can't be the best color because there are two other primary colors that are on par with it. Then there's the whole psychology behind colors that can be brought into play, like red being a color that babies are more drawn to, or yellow being a calming color.

Then we take a look at someone's opinion on the word best and how the interpret the meaning, which usually varies from person to person. This is what causes arguements over opinions, if everyone's opinion was a well-informed fact based opinion then there would be no discussion here, but people make their opinions without knowing all the facts which causes opinions to be wrong.

The only opinions that can never be wrong are the opinions stating people's favorite somethings. If I say the Cardinals are my favorite team, then that can't be proven wrong. If I say that the Cardinals are my favorite team because they are the best baseball team in history, then my opinion is wrong.

 

[Viola Moonlight]

If an opinion is wrong, you've divided by zero. Reason being is that opinions can't be wrong, they are something that is influenced by a subjective argument that may or may not have substantial facts behind it to explain why you believe so. You can't label something as incorrect when there is never an indefinite answer for the question being asked or the conversation being discussed. Sure, you can completely annihilate someone's reasoning with facts, but you can't make their choice more clear cut and prove it to them.

Example: I'm a Mickie James fan because I like her work. That's an opinion, and that can't be wrong, invalid... whatever word you'd like to use. It's my own personal preference to how she works. You can't tell me that liking her work is wrong... that's fascism. However, if I were to say "Mickie James is the best women's wrestler of all time..." that then becomes a statement. This is where you have to back up your points with solid facts. I could come up with some reasons as to why I formulated that, but you can easily come up in here and tear it to the ground too.​

There is a fine line when dealing with opinions and statements. People have preferences for various reasons, and they are entitled to these opinions... but once you start proclaiming in the form of a statement that such & such is better than such & such... then whatever you have said can be considered wrong and it is nullified from being an opinion.

 

[Smartie]

When i find something not right about an opinion , then i will react in 2 ways :

A)That opinion is stupid.

B)That opinion CAN BE wrong.

I bring examples :

A)I think Ultimate Warrior is the best wrestler in history.

B)I think Ultimate Warrior is the best technical wrestler in history.

In "A" , Someone says think UW is the best.Well , In my point of view this opinion is nothing but a piece of crap , but I can't say it's wrong.Why?Because wrestling is a form of entertainment and the main goal of a wrestler is to entertain.Can you measure the amount of entertainment someone can give?Can you measure the amount of entertainment someone is taking?NO.

It's like pleasure in sex.No one can say to other that i had more pleasure last night.Because It is a personal feeling that only the person who's having it can talk about.

Therefore no matter how stupid that opinion can get , It isn't wrong , and it can't be.


But when we talk about "B" , the story is different.Someone is trying to use the term " technical " after "best".Now someone can argue that this opinion CAN BE wrong.Why?Because the word technical has a meaning to us.We use it for wrestlers being able to apply holds , turn holds to each other and ... .And Iis POSSIBLE that we review UW and other wrestler's matches and by using the meaning of "technical" , claim that this opinion IS wrong.

Wait a minute , Didn't i say CAN BE WRONG , so why did i use IS in my last sentence?That's because i think There's a narrow line between type A & type B.I hope you all get what i meant.If you really did care about this post and didn't get a part of it , then please ask me to explain more.

So , I can say I agree with Mr.Admin , I think opinions actually can be wrong.(Although last sentence was kind an opinion , so it can be wrong too!)

 

[Tastycles]

An opinion, by definition, is a judgement that does not have the necessary factual basis to be determined as a fact or otherwise. Therefore, it cannot categorically be wrong, because it lacks the basis to be determined as fact or otherwise. It can't be wrong because if it was proven false, it would cease to be a valid opinion. Lets take a look at Slyfox's examples.

Example #1:
Let's say you make the comment, "In my opinion, Jury Duty starring Pauly Shore is a better movie than Citizen Kane", then you would be wrong. You may LIKE Jury Duty better than Citizen Kane, but it's not a better movie, nor will it ever be a better movie. In this case, your opinion would be wrong.

Well, even if we are to assume that something artistic can ever be given objective qualities, itself something of a controversial topic (http://www.jstor.org/pss/2379600), you have to dig into the semantics of this sentence to expose it. What this is is poor wording and nothing else. What you have here is either somebody saying the film is better to me, in which they mean that they prefer it, which is the epitome of an opinion. In the second instance, they mean that it is somehow objectively better, which, if you subscribe to aesthetic objectionism, it probably is wrong. However, if intended in this purpose it isn't an opinion at all, it's a statement of fact, and therefore wrong.

So it's either a poorly worded opinion, or it is an incorrect statement of fact.

Example #2:

Let's say you make the comment, "In my opinion, Mario Mendoza was a better all-around hitter than Ted Williams". You would again wrong. Mario Mendoza is famous for the "Mendoza Line", a term in baseball which refers to a batting average of .200, a mark Mendoza hovered around consistently. Ted Williams, on the other hand, is probably most famous as the last MLB hitter to hit for a .400 average, which is more than double the Mendoza line. Throw in the fact Williams has better stats in every major batting category, and the OPINION Mario Mendoza is a better hitter is absurd, and thus, wrong.

Here it is a different matter entirely. The nature of American sports means that you really can determine how good someone is, and in cases like these, you can objectively determine who's better. What the person here is doing is adding "in my opinion" to a factual statement that is wrong, essentially preventing them from being caught up in it. If I said "In my opinion, Winston Churchill was the first President of the United States", that's not an opinion. The only way in which the statement becomes an opinion is if they prefer Mendoza for a reason not specified by batting facts - e.g. batting stance aesthetics - in which case it is an opinion and isn't wrong.

 

[The Mark of Zur-En-Arrh]

You can spout all that stuff off,

I know, that's the point of a thread on a forum, to share your thoughts with others.

but you contradicted yourself again.

How can i have contradicted myself again, when this is the first post i've put in the thread?

You said yourself, if there was no law, it it would not be wrong.

Because who's then to say that your opinion is wrong? How could they factually disprove your opinion, if there wasn't a law in place enforcing the idea that it is wrong?

So the flip side of that is the fact there is a law, so since there is that law, then my opinion is indeed wrong.

I agree. Didn't feel the need to say all that the first time though. Thought what i posted originally was sufficient to imply that was my stance on the issue. Obviously not.

A opinion can be wrong when you are using facts. As in my scenario, the fact is, there is a law that says what Tom did is wrong and illegal, thus voided, nullifying and proving my opinion wrong.

Dude, you just repeated back to me what i said in different words.

If there were no law, how could you prove someone was wrong when they say 'that murder was justified.'?

Hell I am married, which means quite often my opinion is proved wronged.

What was the point in even typing that? What does that actually prove?

Hopefully your grammer and spelling is corrected also.

Give it a rest man

Give what a rest? Again, this was my first post.

Sorry man, but Sly is right, opinions can be wrong.

Yeah, i agreed, not entirely, but i did agree.

but statements like 'This is better than that' when reality does nothing to back that opinion up, are wrong.

See? That's me agreeing that opinions presented as fact can be disproved.

They're wrong when they're presented as statements of fact, which is what i said, and if that wasn't clear, then i apologise, but i'll say this right now. An opinion presented as a fact can be wrong. An opinion presented as a preference, can not be wrong.

"I found 'Terminator' to be more enjoyable to watch than i did 'Predator'." That's an example of an opinion, by all means, prove it wrong.

 

[Xemmy]

Slyfox696 strikes gold again.

It is true that opinions can be wrong.

Your correct that the reason they can be wrong is that people often hold an opinion that has evidence to contrary. My example would be (Just to piss people off), If I were to say, "The God of the Bible is All Merciful and all Forgiving." It would be clear that I was wrong even though that's an opinon, because the All Merciful God spends the first 5 books wiping out people, and those are not the actions of an ALL Merciful being. An opinon has to be based on something, and when that opinion is unsupported AND has evidence to the contrary it is exceptable to call it wrong especially if evidence is high.

 

[People's Champ]

Just because someone adds "this is my opinion", does that truly make it an opinion? I could say "IMO Biggie was behind the 2Pac killing". That's an opinion because there are no facts otherwise to say I'm wrong. If I said "IMO 2Pac was behind Biggie's killing", can that be an opinion? Facts are 2Pac was dead before Biggie. There is no way he could have been involved. Because I added "IMO" does that make it an opinion? No, it just mean I've made a wrong statement. Of course, I could have just contridicted what I'm trying to say, who the hell knows? But I don't see opinions being wrong.

 

[Goliath Uterus]

Exactley, and that's what I think is tripping Sly up. He hears people say incorrect statements all the time, and calls them out on it, they respond with "oh well, that's just my opinion." And that's bullshit, there's a difference between an incorrect statement, and an opinion that you don't agree with. It completely contradicts the definition of the word "opinion" to declare that an opinion can be wrong.