Retrograde said:
Mr F. said:
Opinions are pretty much worthless unless they are backed up by fact. End of.
For those just joining us, this is not only an opinion, but this is the kind of overblown opinion that might as well be a full on dropped trow dick-wave.
There is very little difference in someone saying "opinions can never be wrong because they're all subjective" and someone else saying "opinions can ONLY be wrong unless you're able to 'present facts' to back it up".
Not wrong, worthless. They can, in retrospect, be proven to be right. But if they are not based in fact, listening to them is simply futile.
Easy, simplistic example.
Imagine a politician in the 1930's saying "Hitler needs to be stopped because Germans are all warmongering maniacs". Said politician would have been right, hitler should have been stopped and was a warmongering maniac, but the premise of the argument is incorrect and the opinion is pretty much worthless (And grounded in xenophobia and racism.).
So, I accept that the opinion I put forward there is an opinion and, under my own premise, worthless because I am not putting forward a fact to back it up (Just further opinion.). In some cases you do not need to put forward the facts (Very rare cases mind) if the facts are assumed to be universally known. Within a poltics final, for example, if you need to reference the Harm Principle of JS Mill, you are not expected to have to explain the principle or who JS Mill was, simply because it is safe to assume that the Lecturer knows who Mill was.
So no. Opinions that are not accompanied by facts can be both right and wrong, however they are worthless. If you cannot justify your opinion with fact, your opinion is worthless. The idea that all opinions are equal is damaging and comes from a trend of anti-intellectualism that has been present in the west for many, many years.
If a wanker on the street says "Immigrants are taking all of the jobs, send them off back to bongo-bongo land!", his opinion on the matter is worthless. If a wanker in a suit states that "Immigration can be seen to be damaging to the economy, and here is why..." his opinion is less worthless, although I would argue that both are equally incorrect yet of different worth (And the second statement is deliberately the kind of broad statement you get form politicians, the words "Can be shown to be" can be used to hide just about anything.).
Your mistake was equating "Worth" with "Accuracy.". When any group of people have a discussion, there will be different opinions being floated. Naturally, everyone with their own opinion will believe their opinion to be right. If everyone is backing their arguments up with hard facts, their opinions, however differed, will be of equal worth.
Now, most of the debating I do is political, but examples within gaming exist. "Battlefield is better than COD because it is more fun!" = Worthless, subjective opinion that cannot be proved. "Battlefield is better on *insert issue* than COD because *insert justification* and I therefore believe it to be a better game." = Opinion with some merit, whether or not it is accurate.
If you are arguing your opinion with someone and you cannot provide justification or facts expect to be torn apart regardless.
tldr;
Opinions are pretty much worthless unless they are backed up by fact, arguing on an issue if you do not know the facts is utterly pointless and holding a position without facts to justify said position is just stupid.
