Next Jericho
Robbie E's number one fan BRO
.
So, opinions can't be wrong huh Mr. Raven's Epitaph....
- Thread starter One Punch Doug Crashin
- Start date
Goliath Uterus
Getting Noticed By Management
Yes, they should...
If an opinion makes a statement such as "I think John Cena only knows 5 moves" then it can be wrong. One would merely have to show John Cena doing more than five moves. If it does not make such a statement "I find John Cena to be boring in the ring" it cannot be wrong. Because what one person finds to be interesting another may find dull.
Goliath Uterus
Getting Noticed By Management
That's not an opinion.
It's half eleven. Forgive me if I make imperfect examples. The point is that if something makes a testable statement it can be proven wrong. If not, it cannot.
But to give a better example: "I think John Cena is worthless" is an opiniion which can be proven wrong by the fact that he draws 35% of WWE's merchandising income.
A low point in the career of Slyfox.
I wasn't talking about age, but rather mentality.
And plenty of adults.
Do you ever get tired of looking like a moron when you post with me?
Pepe Silvia
Occasional Pre-Show
It's my opinion that the world is rectangular.
/thread
/thread
Final Form Snyper.
GOAT Human Being
Having heart problems?
One Punch Doug Crashin
I AM INVINSIBLE!
What does that have to do with anything?
And yet, I still won the argument, and still was on the side of correctness. Amazing how I do that, eh?
Goliath Uterus
Getting Noticed By Management
You didn't win anything, it was a pointless arguement.
Wow. Someone might as well edit your post to say "I'm a sore loser".
Goliath Uterus
Getting Noticed By Management
I didn't lose, he was absolutely wrong the whole time. A 6 year old could've won that debate.
You beat most people. You used a straw man argument though. You said "opinions can be wrong here are some opinions" then listed things that weren't opinions, then proved them wrong. The only reason an opinion can be wrong is because people don't really know what an opinion is, and what they say isn't really an opinion, like this tool demonstrates:
Charlton Banks said:
Goliath Uterus
Getting Noticed By Management
Whattya know, I was saying the same thing.
No, I most certainly did win.
No, because if that were the case, you would have had a shot.
I easily won that debate.
Not true, in fact my primary example is most certainly an example of an opinion. A wrong one.
Goliath Uterus
Getting Noticed By Management
If it's wrong, it's not an opinion. Simple as that.
No it isn't. If you read into it as an opinion, "I prefer jury duty starring Pauly Shore", then it's not wrong, that person may prefer it. If you read into it exactly how it is written by you, then it is, as the tool earlier showed, adding "In my opinion" to a statement of refutable fact, and therefore isn't an opinion. Of course, this is assuming objectivism in art, which itself isn't a given.
That's a stupid statement. Opinions can be wrong, and I've proven it. I believe you're mistaking "preference" and "opinion". Preferences cannot be wrong, I would agree. Opinions can.
Preference and opinion are not interchangeable though.
Sure it is is, it's just an erroneous opinion.
I was actually referring to the baseball example. But the Pauly Shore works well enough, assuming a fair amount of objectivism in art.
Goliath Uterus
Getting Noticed By Management
No, the baseball example was awful. You can like the lesser player, but the stats prove that he's a lesser player, therefore having the "opinion" that he's better isn't actually an opinion. Keep giving me examples and I'll prove that A. - It's not an opinion... Or B. - That it's a preference.
Wait, why isn't it an opinion? Because YOU say it isn't? See, that's where you're failing. It most certainly CAN be an opinion...an erroneous one. Thank you for proving my point though, that opinions can be wrong.
At the end of the day, you cannot get around the fact that if it is TRULY my opinion that Mendoza is a better hitter than Ted Williams, then that is my opinion. And, like you said, stats prove it to be a wrong opinion.
The baseball example isn't necessarily an opinion though, it is either a case of attaching "In my opinion" to something that is objectively determinable, or its a valid opinion.
I'm not the sort to start quoting the dictionary in an argument, but by any definition you will find, an opinion is a subjective statement based on an interpretation objective facts.
Now, you can reason that one opinion is better than another that uses the same underlying facts, however you can never conclusively prove the truth or falsisity of an opinion, as soon as you do so, you have made it objective, and therefore it is no longer an opinion.
If we go to your baseball example, (I've forgotten the players' names and can't be bothered to check, so "A" is the good one and "B" is the shit one from here on), the objective facts that the assumptions are built on are the statistics relating to each player. If the opinions are formed uniquely on the comparison of these figures, and A bests B in all of them, it is an objective statement built on objective facts and therefore not an opinion.
However, as will no doubt actually be the case, there will be some aspects of B's character that are better or at least neutral when looking at the case objectively. E.g. A might hit the ball harder, further, more often and with more direction, but B may hit it higher. Even if you have no measurable objective qualities that are greater on the B side, it is necessarily true that they do something differently. They stand a different way when they swing the bat, they may play with a smile on their face, they may wear their hat at a jaunty angle etc. These variables are objective, but the weighting that an observer gives to them in formulating their opinion is subjective.
Now it is easily possible to show that reasoning that a better batsman is one that hits the ball further is better than reasoning that a better batsman holds the bat at 40 degrees, but fundamentally there is no universal governing rule for "best batsman", if there were, it would be objective and therefore not an opinion, but a factual statement "A is better than B".
An opinion can be hard to reasonably support, but it cannot, by definition be wrong. If something can be proven to be absolutely true or false, it isn't subjective, it's objective, and therefore not an opinion. So while I agree that some opinions are better than others, because they are more rational in their analytical approach to the underlying objective information, they can never be truly wrong, because then they cease to be subjective.
And if I looked hard enough, I bet I could find one objective fact to support my opinion. Of course, my opinion would be WRONG, but it would still be my opinion.
Wow, you put WAAAY to much effort into that. I basically just skimmed it, but want to point one thing out.
Note the bolded. If someone were to make a statement about a subject, without even consulting that underlying objective information, then it is very much possible to make a statement which is false, as evidenced by Batter A vs. Batter B example.
I'll give you another example. If a person was asked, "In your opinion, what is the most prestigious MLB baseball team?" and the person replied with "Tampa Bay Devil Rays", then it would be wrong, as there is no collection of objective criteria in which one could say the Tampa Bay Devil Rays are a more prestigious franchise than say, the New York Yankees. Note this person was not asked which team he liked better, or which he preferred to attend a game, or whatever, he was asked a question which may not have a definitive correct opinion, but definitely has many incorrect opinions.
Hell, what another example? Your opinion is that opinions can't be wrong, and your opinion is wrong.
No it wouldn't be wrong, unless it couldn't be supported by any objective facts, then it would be an invalid opinion to make.
No I didn't, I'm just not a ******. They were literally the words I typed as I thought.
Then it wouldn't be an opinion. It wouldn't be anything, it would be words that sound like an opinion, but you can't subjectively look at nothing.
This isn't an opinion. There are a number of valid answers to the question (probably, I know literally nothing about baseball), each of which analyse the objective facts in a number of different ways to come to their conclusion. If the Tampa Bay Devil Rays have zero basis in such an argument using the underlying objective information provided for "most prestigious MLB team", you could not logically draw the conclusion that they were the best, therefore it isn't an opinion. It's the same as if I say, "In your opinion, what is the best colour in the rainbow" and you say "grey", that's not a valid opinion, but it is wrong.
I actually think I see where you are coming from now, but I wouldn't say a ****** adding "In my opinion" to a conclusion that cannot be rationally drawn is an opinion.
You are saying that an opinion can be wrong if it draws on no objective information, or on incorrect objective information, and I'm saying in that case it isn't an opinion, it's just wrong. I actually think the only difference we have here is how we define what an opinion is. By my definition (the correct one) you can't have a right opinion any more than a wrong one.
In your version, yes you can have wrong opinions, but by the same token you can have true opinions, at which point the difference between opinion and fact becomes so blurred as to be useless.
Let me elaborate. If someone was to answer your question "I know it's not the Tampa Bay Devil Rays" is that an opinion or a fact? Because if it's an opinion, it's inverse must also be an opinion, but if its inverse is objectively false, as you say, then it must be objectively true, in which case what is the difference between objective truth, falseness and subjective opinion?
Hell, what another example? Your opinion is that opinions can't be wrong, and your opinion is wrong.
It's not an opinion, it's a fact.
