If you define 'opinion' to simply be a personal view of an entirely subjective and nonquantifiable matter, then it's hard to argue that opinions can be definitely wrong.
That being said, if opinions are simply synonyms for beliefs, then sure, they can be wrong. People believe wrong things all the time. Someone could not believe in gravity, which sounds equally silly but perhaps less nonsensical than someone holding the opinion that gravity doesn't exist.
Maybe because beliefs are usually distinguished as separate from facts, whereas opinions are thought of as based on facts, though neither beliefs nor opinions are limited to such distinctions.
Originally posted by Existere
If you define 'opinion' to simply be a personal view of an entirely subjective and nonquantifiable matter, then it's hard to argue that opinions can be definitely wrong.That being said, if opinions are simply synonyms for beliefs, then sure, they can be wrong. People believe wrong things all the time. Someone could not believe in gravity, which sounds equally silly but perhaps less nonsensical than someone holding the opinion that gravity doesn't exist.
Maybe because beliefs are usually distinguished as separate from facts, whereas opinions are thought of as based on facts, though neither beliefs nor opinions are limited to such distinctions.
Originally posted by ExistereI think that you're on the right track amongst these posts. From childhood haven't we all been taught that opinions are peoples personal stances on their preferences? When people take the idea of what an opinion is out of context then perhaps it could be wrong, but then the idea about what one is has to be skewed.
If you define 'opinion' to simply be a personal view of an entirely subjective and nonquantifiable matter, then it's hard to argue that opinions can be definitely wrong.That being said, if opinions are simply synonyms for beliefs, then sure, they can be wrong. People believe wrong things all the time. Someone could not believe in gravity, which sounds equally silly but perhaps less nonsensical than someone holding the opinion that gravity doesn't exist.
Maybe because beliefs are usually distinguished as separate from facts, whereas opinions are thought of as based on facts, though neither beliefs nor opinions are limited to such distinctions.
Opinions deal with all the things that aren't facts. How can they be wrong when they only apply to the individual? We love it, or we hate it, we think it's ugly or pretty , someone seems honest, or shady. When people start sharing facts they have left their opinions behind and can then be correct or incorrect.
For example if you think I'm stupid then that's your opinion, but if you think I'm wrong then you should be able to prove it. I could have an IQ of 500 and nobody could tell you that you do think I'm smart if you plainly don't. But if I'm wrong about something many people could present the evidence contrasting what I'm saying.
Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
yeah, but they're still spicy hot and if they don't acknowledge that they're wrong. Whats a Ghost chili?
To some people they're not though. People's reaction to capsaicin varies.
Ghost Chili = One of the hottest peppers on the planet. Known as the 'Bhut Jolokia' from India. I think it's ranked 2-3 hottest pepper on the Scoville Scale, or close to 1,000,000 Scoville points.
Originally posted by The MISTER
Opinions deal with all the things that aren't facts. How can they be wrong when they only apply to the individual? We love it, or we hate it, we think it's ugly or pretty , someone seems honest, or shady. When people start sharing facts they have left their opinions behind and can then be correct or incorrect.
If you take the argument of "No opinion is wrong" to it's extreme, you can come up with some pretty interesting results.
For example, you say the sky is blue. I say it's green.
Both are opinions. The designation of colors (Or value of numbers, letters, ect..) has no basis in fact, at all. They're simply standards we use to communicate information.
Another thing not based on fact: Humans have basic human rights.
Some people may not believe in this. Some cultures may not believe in this. Maybe one country has a subclass of people that are forced to labor for an upper class, work in terrible conditions, and can be killed at the slightest provocation, real or imagined.
But hey, they're entitled to their opinion, right? Who are we to call them wrong?
Originally posted by cdtm
If you take the argument of "No opinion is wrong" to it's extreme, you can come up with some pretty interesting results.For example, you say the sky is blue. I say it's green.
Both are opinions. The designation of colors (Or value of numbers, letters, ect..) has no basis in fact, at all. They're simply standards we use to communicate information.
The actual color of the sky in, essentially, a matter of fact. I suppose a colorblind person might perceive it differently but we can still described it based on wavelength.
Now if you mean a purely semantic argument of "In my opinion the color of the sky is called green." then we can and should simply ignore such a person. They've rejected the very language they are using to communicate their idea, no discussion is possible to begin with.
Originally posted by cdtm
Another thing not based on fact: Humans have basic human rights.Some people may not believe in this. Some cultures may not believe in this. Maybe one country has a subclass of people that are forced to labor for an upper class, work in terrible conditions, and can be killed at the slightest provocation, real or imagined.
But hey, they're entitled to their opinion, right?
Yes, in my opinion, they are absolutely entitled to their opinion that slavery is okay.
Originally posted by cdtm
Who are we to call them wrong?
We're people who disagree with them. Duh?
Acknowledging that people have the right to their own opinions doesn't mean letting them do whatever they want. If, in your opinion, slavery is bad then you should still fight for it even though it is not a factual matter.