Thread: "There are never right or wrong opinions"

I was informed that, when in a debate, if you talk/write in a way where you think your opinion is correct is arrogant and closed minded. Well i was thinking if you hold an opinion then you must believe that opinion is correct, people who believe in god believe that their opinion is correct. Also, lets face it...opinions hurt sometimes, i informed someone that i thought they were deluded... but that's my opinion so that opinion to them is wrong because to them their own opinion is correct....

so anyway, is it really that wrong to voice that your opinion is correct?

p.s It really annoys me when theists often call non believers close minded when non believeing scientific minds often believe outrageous claims when supported by facts and evidence yet often theists will carry on supporting outrageous claims when facts and evidence are present that refute them, and we're the close minded ones?

Opinion are for weather and gossip, and facts are for serious stuff. People will guard their opinion strongly for serious matter and no amount of counter-opinion can sway it. Better not argue with people in the first place if we can't show something that both side could agree with...

Originally Posted by Kyleg

so anyway, is it really that wrong to voice that your opinion is correct?

No, and I've been chastised more times than I care to remember for saying something I think is valid. I also don't think it wrong to voice an incorrect opinion. Opine away! Don't sit on your hands, let it rip. The key, especially on a forum such as this, is to stimulate conversation.

Yeah, but this is a science forum.
That means that evidence is normally called for. If you have an opinion with no evidence, it is not scientific, and serves only to fuel dissent, where science should quell dissent through providing evidence.

Originally Posted by skeptic

Yeah, but this is a science forum.
That means that evidence is normally called for. If you have an opinion with no evidence, it is not scientific, and serves only to fuel dissent, where science should quell dissent through providing evidence.

Good point but it sounds like a Catch-22. That's my opinion of course. Not sure if the OP author was referencing science in the Philosophy subforum.

Originally Posted by Kyleg

I was informed that, when in a debate, if you talk/write in a way where you think your opinion is correct is arrogant and closed minded. Well i was thinking if you hold an opinion then you must believe that opinion is correct, people who believe in god believe that their opinion is correct. Also, lets face it...opinions hurt sometimes, i informed someone that i thought they were deluded... but that's my opinion so that opinion to them is wrong because to them their own opinion is correct....

so anyway, is it really that wrong to voice that your opinion is correct?

p.s It really annoys me when theists often call non believers close minded when non believeing scientific minds often believe outrageous claims when supported by facts and evidence yet often theists will carry on supporting outrageous claims when facts and evidence are present that refute them, and we're the close minded ones?

So, what if you present a question as a thread, without presenting your own opinion, your aim being to stimulate debate, and then fruitless responses, not necessarily all, come forward that eventually highjack the thread and have it sent to the bin or the pseudoscience section?


"Science" "forum".
Not, "present your opinion".
But, you know, it seems the whole forum here has a collective opinion that Frank Oz would perhaps best understand.
You either know I am cautious or you know I want your opinion without suffering your fate.

Originally Posted by Kyleg

I was informed that, when in a debate, if you talk/write in a way where you think your opinion is correct is arrogant and closed minded. Well i was thinking if you hold an opinion then you must believe that opinion is correct, people who believe in god believe that their opinion is correct.

There is a difference between believing your opinion is correct (which, as you say, everyone will). And asserting your opinion is still correct even when evidence shows that you are mistaken. As someone said, "everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but not their own facts".

It is more reasonable to believe your opinion is correct but remain open to the fact that you might be wrong and so you should listen to other people's arguments.

Well, that sounds good, but you missed my point entirely.

How can someone have an opinion when they are actually looking for ideas to weigh up before they make a decision on an opinion?

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Well, that sounds good, but you missed my point entirely.

Sorry, I hadn't seen your post - I was just replying to the first one...

Why even tell me that, like I just read your post because it seemed natural to do so?

This is you, right?

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

Why even tell me that, like I just read your post because it seemed natural to do so?

I was just explaining why I missed your point (or maybe you weren't addressing me)...

This is you, right?

I think so...

Maybe I should quote you, like not assuming answering directly, like top-down, isn't right, isn't your game, right?

You want me to quote you, is that it? Is this how it is done here, on this level of forum activity?


Whataver you style is, right?

Huh!? Whatever.

I know. I am the "lenient one".

When relative to something where facts apply, I don't think you can ever say, "My opinion is correct." However, in my opinion, you can say "My opinion is more correct." Would others agree that this is more reasonable, being the context of a fact is that it is definitively right, has anyone in the history of the world, and in any field, ever been entirely correct? It seems to me that if facts are involved, the "facts" will always be a work in progress.

Where is the incentive to offer a new idea that "is" actually correct if people are merely going to argue up as close as possible to it and take it on board their ship and use it as their own idea?

Surely there is a fundamental code of recognising that a person's opinion, if proven to be correct, is held by that person if indeed that person authored that correct opinion?

In the absence of that grace, why offer any correct opinions? It's almost retarded, right? Pearls before swine I think is the term.



By the conduct of argument demonstrated here, surely if one had a correct opinion they would first make sure it lead to discoveries of technology that afforded them the higher ground first...........the rest would be history.

There is more than one type of opinion:

Class 1: Personal preferences -e.g. In my opinion smoked salmon is an outstanding food. (Implicitly, "for me".) This type of opinion is automatically correct, unless you are lying, and therefore quite appropriate to insist upon.

Class 2: Personal expectations - e.g. In my opinion it will rain this afternoon. (Stated in circumstances where rain is quite plausible.) This type of opinion is arguably correct since it contains an implicit caveat - "I could be wrong, but based on such information and experience as I have this is what I think will happen." It is appropriate to assert one believes this to be correct as long as one acknowledges the possibility of error.

Class 3: Personal prejudices - e.g. In my opinion Belgians are boring. (There is no significant evidence to suggest Belgians are any more boring than any other nationality.) This opinion is wrong and should not be asserted. If it is it should be accpmpanied by a humble acknowledgement that while Belgians might be boring, you are certainly an asshole.

Class 4: Personal Incredulity - e.g. In my opinion it just isn't possible that evolution could produce the diversity of life we see today. This type of opinion should always be strongly asserted so as to alert others to the fact that you are a numbskull.

Huh?

From what I gather.
If you have an opinion state it but expected to provide either your own or others credible evidence and reasoning.

If you don't have an opinion, than simply put it in the form of a question with a bit of your own thinking so people have something to grab onto.

Surely there is a fundamental code of recognising that a person's opinion,

I wouldn't put it that way, but certainly there are common ways to evaluated credibility of arguments and statements in scientific discussions.

So, if I may, what motivates you to provide a correct opinion?

What motivates me to provide a correct opinion? Well if it's a correct opinion i don't really want to call it an opinion-in most circumtances opinion don't matter, to me anyway, other than possibly when we are producing a hypotheis. In a way i think of a hypothesis as an opinion of what you want to be true or expect to be true-makes sense? well to me it does because people usually have opinions in the hope that they are true or thinking that the opinion will be the outcome. So what drives me to provide or find the correct "opinion" is my hunger for an truth and an explanation of this truth. You can't truthfuly explain an opinion, one that matters atleast, without evidence. But are there really ever any "truths"?

Yeah, I know what you're saying. But in fewer words could I perhaps suggest that one key desire of offering a truth, aka correct opinion, is the granting of respect by others for being able to work-out/deduce/whatever-else-one-wants-to-call-it any such truth?

In the absence of being offered that respect therefore, that honour, for providing a correct opinion, is there any motive in providing truth?


(good, if not right, ideas rarely succeed, are let alone heard, in times of irreverence)

Again, I emphasize evidence.

An opinion without evidence is of little, if any, value. If someone expresses an opinion on this forum, and I cannot answer it immediately, I will do a search for evidence. I will post such evidence, for or against, to make my own argument.

It does not always convince people, of course. This is because there are a lot of people, probably a majority, who are more swayed by emotion than by objective data.

A retrospective forum, if indeed evidence is already posted elsewhere?

Forum's are good places to discuss borderline issues though, no? Maybe even new ideas looking for testing with others?

In my opinion, "pro-girl sexism" -- discussed in Bad Cultures -- is a severe societal evil.

I've discussed my opposition to this horrific gender-unfairness in chat rooms. Many of the guys call me "gay", because I'm against the societal pro-girl bias. Let me just say something...

If a grown man calls me "gay" because he believes I don't like girls, I'll mirror his insult right back at him and call him a pedophile. Here's is why. Grown men are NOT supposed to like girls. Girls are children, just like boys. So if adult man calls me 'gay' for not liking girls, I can safely assume he DOES like girls. If he likes girls, then he likes children -- and any grown man who likes children is a pedophile.

Hence I make the connection that if any adult man calls me 'gay' due to my hatred of 'pro-girl sexism', he must be a pedo with a thing for girl-children.

BTW, I *am* solely attracted to females but *only* the ones who are fully-developed -- physically, psychologically, biologically and chronologically. Since 'extended adolescence' can last up to 30 years of age, I prefer women who are 30+ years of age.

I like women, not girls. Any man who likes girls is mentally-ill and needs to be kept away from children.

Boy = male under 18 years of age = child

Girl = female under 18 years of age = child

Woman = female who is 18 years of age or older = adult

Man = male who is 18 years of age or older = adult

While I realize the sexism is a pet issue for you, I don't see what it has to do with this thread. Is it just an example of an incomplete formed opinion you've had trouble getting across? Just an ad to pull us to into that other thread? Why?

Originally Posted by theQuestIsNotOver

In the absence of being offered that respect therefore, that honour, for providing a correct opinion, is there any motive in providing truth?

Well for me i just like to know the truth and dislike something that has no explanation, if this makes sense? for others it may be the idea of respect on honour and possibly that is a little to do with it for me, not really sure. But really it just has to do with that idea of wanting an explanation, a valid one.

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

In my opinion, "pro-girl sexism" -- discussed in Bad Cultures -- is a severe societal evil.

I've discussed my opposition to this horrific gender-unfairness in chat rooms. Many of the guys call me "gay", because I'm against the societal pro-girl bias. Let me just say something...

If a grown man calls me "gay" because he believes I don't like girls, I'll mirror his insult right back at him and call him a pedophile. Here's is why. Grown men are NOT supposed to like girls. Girls are children, just like boys. So if adult man calls me 'gay' for not liking girls, I can safely assume he DOES like girls. If he likes girls, then he likes children -- and any grown man who likes children is a pedophile.

Hence I make the connection that if any adult man calls me 'gay' due to my hatred of 'pro-girl sexism', he must be a pedo with a thing for girl-children.

BTW, I *am* solely attracted to females but *only* the ones who are fully-developed -- physically, psychologically, biologically and chronologically. Since 'extended adolescence' can last up to 30 years of age, I prefer women who are 30+ years of age.

I like women, not girls. Any man who likes girls is mentally-ill and needs to be kept away from children.

Boy = male under 18 years of age = child

Girl = female under 18 years of age = child

Woman = female who is 18 years of age or older = adult

Man = male who is 18 years of age or older = adult

Maybe take this up with Hollywood executives, X-factor judges, European Princes.......? Not sure how scientists can be of help.

Originally Posted by Green Xenon

In my opinion, "pro-girl sexism" -- discussed in Bad Cultures -- is a severe societal evil.

Please stop polluting threads with this incoherent stuff. If you have this much of a problem with this, I recommend you seek professional help.

Anyone can believe what wants to believe, while not affecting otherones there's no problem. But the truth is only one, different truths cannot coexist.
So in response to the title of the thread: "there are never right or wrong opinions" I answer that yes, there are right and wrong opinions but sometimes the real truth is not known precisely and we have only opinions more near or more far than the truth...

In the absence of being offered that respect therefore, that honour, for providing a correct opinion, is there any motive in providing truth?

Most of us want to be truthful. Personally I see no advantage in being dishonest. (Though the normal tact, reticence and discretion we might use in private conversations is in a different category, I think.)

Of course, one must never overlook the constant warm, inner glow of anticipation while we await the satisfying "I told you so!" moment. Even if it takes months or years.