Poll: Can an opinion be wrong?

[SilverUchiha]

Of course they can. If your opinion is that one race is inferior to another, your opinion is wrong.

white people took over most of the world at one point world and invented most things, Asians made every thing the white man made better. black people are good at professional sports and native Americans were the first to use 0 in math. different but defendantly equal across the bord.

You forgot about the blue people... and aliens... and what about the Latino community?

OT: Opinions themselves cannot be wrong because they are not a fact, but a statement based off information which may or may not be wrong. Simply saying a false statement doesn't mean you have a wrong opinion, it just means you're an idiot of thinking that counts as an opinion.

 

[sageoftruth]

Yes, it can be wrong. The important thing is that the speaker acknowledged the possibility of being wrong himself/herself.

 

[sageoftruth]

If I feel the need to say "that's stupid" in response to your opinion, then it is wrong.

That's my opinion anyway.

Than I accept your opinion as an opinion good sir.

 

[Imat]

Of course they can. If your opinion is that one race is inferior to another, your opinion is wrong.

Well, depends on what you mean by inferior. Overall, yeah, that opinion'd be wrong. However, races have both advantages and disadvantages. If every race in an rpg had the same stats, would anybody ever pick anything but dwarf? The answer is no, no they would not. Real world example: Being a white male in the US puts you in the "majority," with access to exclusive clubs just by being you, but it also means you're less likely to get a job (Unless it truly is based on merit, then its anybody's game), less likely to get scholarships for college, etc. Advantages and Disadvantages, but no character creation screen for you.

your definition of majority is wrong, majority = 50%

That's why its in quotes. Yet even though we aren't the majority, being the "majority" is a common assumption.

 

[Imat]

Of course they can. If your opinion is that one race is inferior to another, your opinion is wrong.

Well, depends on what you mean by inferior. Overall, yeah, that opinion'd be wrong. However, races have both advantages and disadvantages. If every race in an rpg had the same stats, would anybody ever pick anything but dwarf? The answer is no, no they would not. Real world example: Being a white male in the US puts you in the "majority," with access to exclusive clubs just by being you, but it also means you're less likely to get a job (Unless it truly is based on merit, then its anybody's game), less likely to get scholarships for college, etc. Advantages and Disadvantages, but no character creation screen for you.

Correction then: one race is not inherently inferior to another.

I agree with that.

 

[Marowit]

Yes, they can be wrong.

There have been several responses that have already pointed out how (racial, scientific, etc...).

Having an opinion on Coke vs. Pepsi is one thing. Having an opinion on race, etc, are things that can be proven wrong.

 

[FalloutJack]

Simple enough, can an opinion be wrong?

By definition, opinion is not fact, and thus cannot be PROVEN true.
Yet when "discussion" happens among us (usually around the internet)usually about things of mere opinions I see many people (instead of justifying their opinions) dis-justify (you get what I mean) other people's opinions. Is this the right way to go about discussion? Is there ever really a "winner" in these discussions?

Just because people put "My opinion is" in front of something doesn't actually make it a opinion.

Take this into account. Although the above is just an opinion...or is it?

Hoo boy. Lemme tell you, some conversations arejust minefields of discussion threatening to go bad. An opinion works thusly... (And no, this is NOT an opinion. This could be construed as a reasonable deconstruction.)

A fact is truth. Not their truth or your truth. Just THE truth. It means that you or anyone else can be wrong if it is not this. Bear that in mind. (Also, this has nothing to do with 'truthiness'.)

A factual-based opinion is a logical construct created from what is known to be the truth, which may turn out to be the truth if/when the proof bears it all out.

A personal opinion is the one where someone's own view, which may or may not be shared by others, is put forth. This is something that is perceived as maybe true, but is not known to be true per se. Also, majority rule does not make it true. It makes it popular.

A popular opinion is something that lots of people believe, whether it is the truth or not. Ergo, if lots of people believe that the Earth is the center of the universe, I believe Mr. Galileo has a surprise for you. The opinions of others to believe in a wrong thing is just an upset of Bloodymindium, not the truth.

An exercise in post-modernism is to formulate a truth from a non-truth, as with the notion that Spinal Tap was a fictional band from a mockumentary called This is Spinal Tap, and then years later a real band with their name and even song-titles shows up. This doesn't mean you get to create the truth by ignoring reality and just wishing for things. (Not unless you actually want to create your own band or something.)

And finally, you have an out-and-out lie, a total fabrication, A deliberate falsehood. Many people tend to believe lies for varying reasons. In most cases, this makes alot of trouble in the world, but that's a can of worms all on its own.

Why did I say all this? Eh, because the nature of facts VS opinions are sometimes seen in too black-and-white a perspective. Your best bet is to take everything with a grain of salt and double-check what you know.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

It depends.

If somone were to say, "it is my opinion that I am 6ft tall", but he's not, the yes, his opinion is wrong.

Of course, that's not really an opinion. Or is that an opinion in it'self?

OH SHI- *rip in timespace fabric*

 

[Hap2]

Yes, an opinion can be wrong if the reasoning behind is is inherently flawed.

 

[kouriichi]

Yup. It may be what you think, but that doesnt mean your right xD

 

[Kair]

An opinion is the accumulated knowledge of an individual. An opinion not changed by additional information is not an opinion, but a bias.

Because of this, in some sense a real opinion can never be wrong, only incomplete.

 

[Ironic Pirate]

No, an opinion is based on a subjective statement, therefore it can't be wrong.

If it can be proven wrong, it isn't an opinion.

 

[Rofl-Mayo]

An opinion is a personal thought and you can't just say, "No, you don not think that." Therefore an opinion cannot be wrong.

 

[omicron1]

A subjective opinion can be objectively wrong.

An objective fact can be subjectively wrong.

An objective fact cannot be objectively wrong.

A subjective opinion can be subjectively wrong. (but only from an alternate viewpoint)



...Any questions?

 

[Apocalypse Tank]

Inabsolute wrongs.

Different people have different ideas about what is cloudy and is a clear sky. Even an illogical opinion to YOU is not a wrong opinion, it makes perfect sense in another's mind.

This is true in many cases, especially with subjective adjectival descriptives, such a "cloudy" and "clear" -- when it comes to the sky. However, an opinion can be wrong when it is concerned with the objective. For instance, see my previous post, where I gave the example of the state ment "that cat is a dog". This is a declarative statement, however it is also an opinion. The statement is incorrect because it ignores the original intention of naming animals -- to distinguish them from another. The name given to cats and dogs is widely accepted by most people. If someone ignores this widespread acceptance, in accordance with one of the many definitions of "wrong" -- "not proper or usual; not in accordance with requirements or recommended practice", their statement is wrong.

Now talking about absolute wrongs.

For every belief there are defenders. Simply because they are out-numbered doesn't mean the majority is right.

IMO by stating that the majority or minority can be "right" your argument has been damaged. You have damged your argument by applying the terms "right", and thus by extension of this "wrong", to opinions, which you have previously described to opinions as innapplicable, but I don't like arguing over semantics. This comment concedes that it is possible for some opinions to be more correct than others. Since opinions can contain many complex truths and non-truths, this relativity means that it is possible, although unlikely, for an opinion to contain exclusively non-truths. Just a though though.

Many literary movements study the validity of absolute truths. From your point of reference, a dog cannot be a cat, yet, lets say I claim that a dog is in fact a cat. If we have a conversation, you believe you are right because everyone on Earth shares the same opinion, yet how do you know, that, in fact, a dog is only a dog? Of course, I am mentally stable, and this argument can be proven with sufficient evidence on your behalf in order to convince me. Yet, what if, in a rare chance, the entirety of humanity is incorrect? We are but mindless ants chasing after supposed truths.

Archimede's mathematical knowledge was thought to be conclusional, that is, his findings are absolute with no need for farther research, during the Golden Age of the Greeks. Yet today we have developed beyond Pi, and his numerous other findings.

Newton's Principia, his three famous laws of motion, are fundamental to our understanding of our metaphysical reality. Yet, it has been improved and changed by Einstein.

The very pillars of mathematics and the sciences can be altered suddenly and without warning.

So then, what if, one day, there is more evidence that a dog is in fact a cat? It dosen't matter how many human beings believe in a certain fact/opinion, they are not an omnipotent being.

 

[Apocalypse Tank]

Of course, if my opinion is that the sky is pretty cloudy today and it's completely blue here then my opinion is wrong.

Different people have different ideas about what is cloudy and is a clear sky. Even an illogical opinion to YOU is not a wrong opinion, it makes perfect sense in another's mind.

Opinions can be neither right or wrong. Beliefs can be wrong, but not opinions.

Beliefs and ideologies are extensions of sets of opinions. How can you say beliefs can be wrong but not opinions?

For every belief there are defenders. Simply because they are out-numbered doesn't mean the majority is right.

If there are no clouds in the sky and someone says it's cloudy. They are WRONG. Thus, there opinion of the sky is wrong.

You are brought up by a society that believes no clouds in the sky = clear sky.
To you and your society, that someone is wrong.
He/she believes no clouds = cloudy.

You and your society can throw everything it has on the fact that clear sky = clear sky. Evidence after evidence, more than enough to logically explain, to you, clear sky = clear sky.
Yet, are you sure you are right?
Fundamental laws in sciences are alterable and inherently subjected to our observations.
Newton's Principia (the three laws of motion which we study in physics), taken for granted by the masses after its publication, has all of a sudden been changed and improved by Albert Einstein just recently in the last century.
Our common sense tells us this is impossible, but hypothetically, what if one day science states no clouds = cloudy?

All of a sudden you will find yourself in the "wrong".

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

Of course, if my opinion is that the sky is pretty cloudy today and it's completely blue here then my opinion is wrong.

Different people have different ideas about what is cloudy and is a clear sky. Even an illogical opinion to YOU is not a wrong opinion, it makes perfect sense in another's mind.

Opinions can be neither right or wrong. Beliefs can be wrong, but not opinions.

Beliefs and ideologies are extensions of sets of opinions. How can you say beliefs can be wrong but not opinions?

For every belief there are defenders. Simply because they are out-numbered doesn't mean the majority is right.

If there are no clouds in the sky and someone says it's cloudy. They are WRONG. Thus, there opinion of the sky is wrong.

You are brought up by a society that believes no clouds in the sky = clear sky.
To you and your society, that someone is wrong.
He/she believes no clouds = cloudy.

You and your society can throw everything it has on the fact that clear sky = clear sky. Evidence after evidence, more than enough to logically explain, to you, clear sky = clear sky.
Yet, are you sure you are right?
Fundamental laws in sciences are alterable and inherently subjected to our observations.
Newton's Principia (the three laws of motion which we study in physics), taken for granted by the masses after its publication, has all of a sudden been changed and improved by Albert Einstein just recently in the last century.
Our common sense tells us this is impossible, but hypothetically, what if one day science states no clouds = cloudy?

All of a sudden you will find yourself in the "wrong".

Now that's just silly, firstly, we can both agree that I am currently correct for not cloudy does = not cloudy. Secondly the only way that could change if you could have less clouds than no clouds. Only then would a comparison yield us the result of not cloudy = cloudy. Tell me, how could there possibly be negative clouds in the sky. Until such time as that is possible, I am correct and by extension, the other person is wrong.

 

[Apocalypse Tank]

Of course, if my opinion is that the sky is pretty cloudy today and it's completely blue here then my opinion is wrong.

Different people have different ideas about what is cloudy and is a clear sky. Even an illogical opinion to YOU is not a wrong opinion, it makes perfect sense in another's mind.

Opinions can be neither right or wrong. Beliefs can be wrong, but not opinions.

Beliefs and ideologies are extensions of sets of opinions. How can you say beliefs can be wrong but not opinions?

For every belief there are defenders. Simply because they are out-numbered doesn't mean the majority is right.

If there are no clouds in the sky and someone says it's cloudy. They are WRONG. Thus, there opinion of the sky is wrong.

You are brought up by a society that believes no clouds in the sky = clear sky.
To you and your society, that someone is wrong.
He/she believes no clouds = cloudy.

You and your society can throw everything it has on the fact that clear sky = clear sky. Evidence after evidence, more than enough to logically explain, to you, clear sky = clear sky.
Yet, are you sure you are right?
Fundamental laws in sciences are alterable and inherently subjected to our observations.
Newton's Principia (the three laws of motion which we study in physics), taken for granted by the masses after its publication, has all of a sudden been changed and improved by Albert Einstein just recently in the last century.
Our common sense tells us this is impossible, but hypothetically, what if one day science states no clouds = cloudy?

All of a sudden you will find yourself in the "wrong".

Now that's just silly, firstly, we can both agree that I am currently correct for not cloudy does = not cloudy. Secondly the only way that could change if you could have less clouds than no clouds. Only then would a comparison yield us the result of not cloudy = cloudy. Tell me, how could there possibly be negative clouds in the sky. Until such time as that is possible, I am correct and by extension, the other person is wrong.

I am going to try different words (I never talked about negative clouds).

Your confidence in your logic is from common scientific understanding and the fact that other humans think the same as you.

I am saying that science is alterable at a moment's notice and people, no matter how many, can be wrong. Any fact is subject to change.

Are you willing to admit you are mistaken even if the argument defies logic?