10 ms·

>but it can never be "valid" or "invalid". If someone arrives at opinion X by epistemologically faulty observations of the world or by eating up logical fallac

>but it can never be "valid" or "invalid". If someone arrives at opinion X by epistemologically faulty observations of the world or by eating up logical fallacies do you still think their opinion cannot be said to be invalid?

flutas 5y ago
Nope, you can think their opinion is wrong, but again, opinions themselves can't be wrong/right/valid/invalid as they are not factual in any sense of the word. Opinions are not facts and facts are not opinions. But it truly does get hard to distinguish. Lets take an examples. > The world is flat. That isn't an opinion, that is a "factual statement" that is wrong. No matter how they want to phrase it or look at it, there is evidence that the earth indeed is not flat. > A UFO crashed at Roswell. This is claiming a fact, but we can't know for sure because we don't have reliable evidence either way. > Green is better than blue. This is an opinion, because it's based on personal preference. A good way to try and distinguish is "can this claim be verified." Opinions cannot be verified, as they are based on personal experience / feelings / thoughts. Facts can have measurable data that will support / deny them.
- awb 5y ago
  > Opinions cannot be verified, as they are based on personal experience / feelings / thoughts. Facts can have measurable data that will support / deny them. You can go down the rabbit hole with logical arguments and fallacies trying to neatly categorize things into "facts" and "opinions", but it's not that easy IMO :) For example, I could say "The world is flat" and you could provide all the evidence you want and I could simply say I don't trust the evidence, or your data or your measurement devices. After all there certainly have been "facts" with "evidence" that have been disproven over time as new measurable data was uncovered. I could choose to not believe your evidence while I wait for more sufficient evidence in infinitum. Even 99.9999% confidence still leaves room for doubt. "I think therefor I am" or simply "it thinks" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum), is the closest thing to a "fact" that I've heard. Beyond that statement you have to make a leap of faith somewhere, even to believe the Earth is round. > A UFO crashed at Roswell. > This is claiming a fact, but we can't know for sure because we don't have reliable evidence either way. Russell's teapot is an interesting counter argument to these assertions made without evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot > He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong. So, wether a UFO crashed at Roswell or not isn't really that interesting unless someone somewhere has evidence. But practically, I think it's possible to organize content into "productive theories" and "unproductive theories", which is again still subjective. But a "productive theory" would mean that I have enough confidence where I can use the theory to get a useful or expected result. For example, I don't care if the Earth is "factually" round or not, but I have enough confidence from my interpretation and trust in the collected data about the shape of the Earth that I can build a large-scale reflecting pool that doesn't overflow and program a satellite to not crash back down to the ground. I think a lot of people call these things "facts", but it doesn't mean I have 100% confidence or claim to understand the entire situation, it just means I have enough information to be successful.
- Dudeman112 5y ago
  >> Green is better than blue. >This is an opinion, because it's based on personal preference. "I consider Mr. X a bad person" is also an opinion (notice it's not "Mr. X is a bad person"), but most people would have that opinion due to previous observations about Mr. X, not due to some immaterial thing going on inside their heads that has nothing to do with the world as it is. That opinion is/should be changeable based on further evidence. Experience/feelings/thoughts are based in the mind's interaction with reality. Sure some opinions are just a reflection of whatever internal mechanism is going on inside their heads, but lots of other opinions are not.
  - dragonwriter 5y ago
    > "I consider Mr. X a bad person" is also an opinion No, it's a fact (claim). “Mr. X is a bad person” is an opinion, but “I consider...” is a fact claim about an opinion. > but most people would have that opinion due to previous observations about Mr. X, not due to some immaterial thing going on inside their heads that has nothing to do with the world as it is. No, they think that (or not) because of the interaction between experience and lower-level value functions, not experience alone.
    - Dudeman112 5y ago
      That's some quality nit-picking (which IMO is rather enjoyable) but it doesn't really address what I put forward does it? Thinking "Mr. X is a bad person" is still subject to external experiences and should be re-evaluated if given further evidence. If it can be re-evaluated if given further evidence, surely the initial opinion was invalid? > they think that (or not) because of the interaction between experience and lower-level value functions, not experience alone. "Experience" entails an interaction with inner values for humans - you can't really separate experience from the inner values without cutting off the nervous system from it... at which point you can't call it experiencing something anymore.

flutas 5y ago

Nope, you can think their opinion is wrong, but again, opinions themselves can't be wrong/right/valid/invalid as they are not factual in any sense of the word. Opinions are not facts and facts are not opinions. But it truly does get hard to distinguish. Lets take an examples. > The world is flat. That isn't an opinion, that is a "factual statement" that is wrong. No matter how they want to phrase it or look at it, there is evidence that the earth indeed is not flat. > A UFO crashed at Roswell. This is claiming a fact, but we can't know for sure because we don't have reliable evidence either way. > Green is better than blue. This is an opinion, because it's based on personal preference. A good way to try and distinguish is "can this claim be verified." Opinions cannot be verified, as they are based on personal experience / feelings / thoughts. Facts can have measurable data that will support / deny them.

awb 5y ago
> Opinions cannot be verified, as they are based on personal experience / feelings / thoughts. Facts can have measurable data that will support / deny them. You can go down the rabbit hole with logical arguments and fallacies trying to neatly categorize things into "facts" and "opinions", but it's not that easy IMO :) For example, I could say "The world is flat" and you could provide all the evidence you want and I could simply say I don't trust the evidence, or your data or your measurement devices. After all there certainly have been "facts" with "evidence" that have been disproven over time as new measurable data was uncovered. I could choose to not believe your evidence while I wait for more sufficient evidence in infinitum. Even 99.9999% confidence still leaves room for doubt. "I think therefor I am" or simply "it thinks" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum), is the closest thing to a "fact" that I've heard. Beyond that statement you have to make a leap of faith somewhere, even to believe the Earth is round. > A UFO crashed at Roswell. > This is claiming a fact, but we can't know for sure because we don't have reliable evidence either way. Russell's teapot is an interesting counter argument to these assertions made without evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot > He wrote that if he were to assert, without offering proof, that a teapot, too small to be seen by telescopes, orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, he could not expect anyone to believe him solely because his assertion could not be proven wrong. So, wether a UFO crashed at Roswell or not isn't really that interesting unless someone somewhere has evidence. But practically, I think it's possible to organize content into "productive theories" and "unproductive theories", which is again still subjective. But a "productive theory" would mean that I have enough confidence where I can use the theory to get a useful or expected result. For example, I don't care if the Earth is "factually" round or not, but I have enough confidence from my interpretation and trust in the collected data about the shape of the Earth that I can build a large-scale reflecting pool that doesn't overflow and program a satellite to not crash back down to the ground. I think a lot of people call these things "facts", but it doesn't mean I have 100% confidence or claim to understand the entire situation, it just means I have enough information to be successful.
Dudeman112 5y ago
>> Green is better than blue. >This is an opinion, because it's based on personal preference. "I consider Mr. X a bad person" is also an opinion (notice it's not "Mr. X is a bad person"), but most people would have that opinion due to previous observations about Mr. X, not due to some immaterial thing going on inside their heads that has nothing to do with the world as it is. That opinion is/should be changeable based on further evidence. Experience/feelings/thoughts are based in the mind's interaction with reality. Sure some opinions are just a reflection of whatever internal mechanism is going on inside their heads, but lots of other opinions are not.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > "I consider Mr. X a bad person" is also an opinion No, it's a fact (claim). “Mr. X is a bad person” is an opinion, but “I consider...” is a fact claim about an opinion. > but most people would have that opinion due to previous observations about Mr. X, not due to some immaterial thing going on inside their heads that has nothing to do with the world as it is. No, they think that (or not) because of the interaction between experience and lower-level value functions, not experience alone.
  - Dudeman112 5y ago
    That's some quality nit-picking (which IMO is rather enjoyable) but it doesn't really address what I put forward does it? Thinking "Mr. X is a bad person" is still subject to external experiences and should be re-evaluated if given further evidence. If it can be re-evaluated if given further evidence, surely the initial opinion was invalid? > they think that (or not) because of the interaction between experience and lower-level value functions, not experience alone. "Experience" entails an interaction with inner values for humans - you can't really separate experience from the inner values without cutting off the nervous system from it... at which point you can't call it experiencing something anymore.