Poll: Can an opinion be wrong?

[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?

 

[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.

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?

I would be willing to change my point of view if new information came out to prove I was wrong, but until that time, I am correct and someone who thinks differently is wrong.

 

[tofulove]

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.

Latino is mostly native American with a splash of European ancestry.

 

[tofulove]

one thing total over looked in this, conversation, last time i responded to it i was awake for 23 hours, and total overlooked the fact there only one race, the human race, just different breeds. just saying for the record.

also opinions by there definition cant be wrong(if its not a subject were there is a definite answer). but as many have pointed out can be different types of opinions some of which based in false evidence making them invalid, and some not in a subject were opinions have a place in, like water is bad for humans, isn't a opinion its you being wrong.