What Makes An Opinion "Valid"?

[KissingSunlight]

Something that social justice advocates keep saying finally bothered me. They are always saying that certain opinions are not "valid". Opinions are subjective. Being subjective means they are not burden by the truth. For example, someone could say, "I believe that the sun is not yellow." As an opinion, it is disagreeable. If someone is declaring, as a fact, that the sun is not yellow, then that fact is invalid. As someone once said, "You can have your opinions, but you can not have you own set of facts."

So, are people misusing the word "valid" when it comes to describing opinions?

 

[Erttheking]

If your opinion is based on fuckheaded reasoning, then it's not valid. Homosexuals and blacks being inferior might be an opinion, but anyone who has that opinion can go fuck themselves.

 

[BloatedGuppy]

Definition of valid:

(of an argument or point) having a sound basis in logic or fact; reasonable or cogent.

You can most definitively have invalid opinions. Whether or not two parties in a heated disagreement agree on what constitutes "facts, logic, reason and cogency" is another question entirely.

 

[PsychicTaco115]

This thread is no longer valid because I said so

Doesn't matter what anyone says, it's my opinion and if you disagree then it's censorship

You bigot

 

[Catnip1024]

All opinions are valid, and most can be backed up with some sort of argument, no matter how controversial.

To say someones opinion "is not valid" or "is just morally wrong" is attempting to shut of debate by some cheap means. They may be a complete buffoon, but if they genuinely believe something then belittling them and assuming their opinion is unworthy of consideration makes you the lesser person, there...

 

[Level 7 Dragon]

Well, philosophically speaking, a valid opinion is one that is backed up by certain truths or facts and not just an individual's emotions. As you pointed out, ideoloques tend to exploid the term and the words such as "objectively", "literally" to discredid opposing world views without adressing any of the arguments that the detractor is bringing up. Here is an article one of my Twitter friends send me

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/anti-affirmative-action-bake-sale

We'll not discuss the protest in order to avoid derailing the thread, but observe the comments on the article. There is a conversation between a group of people that think that the concervative students were treated unfairly and the most common reply is that their opinion isn't "valid" because it is "inherently" racist.

While there is an open debate if protesting against affirmative action is a bigoted stance or not, there is no debate that a questioning such a system is "inherently" racist. The article and the supporters of the writer claim that the desenting worldview is "invalid" because it is fueled by bigotry, however fail to explain the direct negative effect such a bake sale has on the lives of the POC students of the university.

Basically, a "valid" opinion is one that is based in reality. But we all know that "reality" can be rather hazy in social studies.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

It has to conform to reality. If my opinion is that you murdered my great great grand dog and personally molested baby Adolf Hitler with one of those swirly straws and a cat named Dr. Cat-Cat Sponge, then my opinion is wrong.

And that's something that needs to be taught in more schools. Opinions can be wrong, straight up. Your view of reality and how you choose to interpret it can be factually, provably incorrect and no one should be obligated to take it seriously.

 

[Saelune]

When fact does not contradict it. I would also perhaps say when your opinion is baseless, or not your own. If you have an opinion, you should be able to explain why you have it.

 

[Glongpre]

Well, philosophically speaking, a valid opinion is one that is backed up by certain truths or facts and not just an individual's emotions. As you pointed out, ideoloques tend to exploid the term and the words such as "objectively", "literally" to discredid opposing world views without adressing any of the arguments that the detractor is bringing up. Here is an article one of my Twitter friends send me

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/anti-affirmative-action-bake-sale

We'll not discuss the protest in order to avoid derailing the thread, but observe the comments on the article. There is a conversation between a group of people that think that the concervative students were treated unfairly and the most common reply is that their opinion isn't "valid" because it is "inherently" racist.

While there is an open debate if protesting against affirmative action is a bigoted stance or not, there is no debate that a questioning such a system is "inherently" racist. The article and the supporters of the writer claim that the desenting worldview is "invalid" because it is fueled by bigotry, however fail to explain the direct negative effect such a bake sale has on the lives of the POC students of the university.

Basically, a "valid" opinion is one that is based in reality. But we all know that "reality" can be rather hazy in social studies.

Huh, I was confused from reading those comments. Did they even know what the students were protesting? Did they just see the event in question, and just jump to conclusions?? You would think students would be more intelligent than that (yes, I know, I even snickered).

OP: You can have wrong opinions. Case in point: White people are not better than black people, therefore anyone with the opinion that white people are greater than black people is 100% wrong.

All opinions are valid, and most can be backed up with some sort of argument, no matter how controversial.

To say someones opinion "is not valid" or "is just morally wrong" is attempting to shut of debate by some cheap means. They may be a complete buffoon, but if they genuinely believe something then belittling them and assuming their opinion is unworthy of consideration makes you the lesser person, there...

You are assuming those who are wrong are being harassed or bullied.
There are clear cases where opinions are wrong factually, morally, ethically, etc.
You can listen to their perspective, but there is no way for them to persuade you regardless, because they are wrong.
I can listen to someone say 1+1=4, but that won't change the fact that 1+1=2.

Your way of judging opinions would be a great detriment to finding any knowledge at all, because you would never say anything is wrong, and the discussion would go nowhere.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Being someone that holds in proggressive views and is currently studying gender studies and/or any other social science. All opinions expressed by any other kind of people are wrong by de facto and should be shamed to no end for holding those opinions.

At least that's what this site has taught me.

Well...no. What has been said is your opinion isn't immune to facts, and in order for it to be valid and worthy of consideration it needs to conform to reality. Which shouldn't be very controversial.

This site is actually very against modern PC conformist thought culture. Although to quote Stephen Colbert "Reality has a well known Liberal bias"

For example if I say "As far as I'm concerned, Bioshock Infinite is a great game!" that's a valid opinion, not because its objectively correct, but because it conforms to reality. I actually do think its a great game.
Whereas me saying "As far as I'm concerned, Bioshock Infinite is about a retired coffee cup named Hopscotch and his ten trillion year long quest to find the perfect topping for his Martian Whole Puppy Toast, which ended up being purple." then I'm wrong. Objectively incorrect, and my opinion would therefore not be valid. My interpretation of the game does not conform to the reality of the game.

 

[Catnip1024]

You are assuming those who are wrong are being harassed or bullied.
There are clear cases where opinions are wrong factually, morally, ethically, etc.
You can listen to their perspective, but there is no way for them to persuade you regardless, because they are wrong.
I can listen to someone say 1+1=4, but that won't change the fact that 1+1=2.

Your way of judging opinions would be a great detriment to finding any knowledge at all, because you would never say anything is wrong, and the discussion would go nowhere.

No, you can have a valid opinion whilst being completely wrong. If you attempt to say that an opinion is invalid because the facts are wrong, well, short of a hard and fact physical law, or video evidence and a signed confession, they can all be debated / open to interpretation. If you say that an opinion is invalid morally, that's even worse because all morals and morality are subjective. Same with ethics.

Being of an invalid opinion and being wrong are not the same thing. A valid opinion is arguable, even if you don't like the argument / think it is a weak argument. All of scientific progress is based on theories / findings being presented to be opposed with counter-evidence / counter-theories. All of the opinions put forward during the process are valid opinions, it's up to the collective community to decide what is the collectively accepted theory at that time. Just because some opinions ultimately happen to be wrong does not mean that their opinion was not a valid one to have at that point in time, given the evidence to hand.

 

[Pseudonym]

Words like 'opinion', 'valid', 'fact', 'subjective', 'objective' and a host of other words should just not be used anymore by anyone because they mean different things to every other person I ask. Well, to be fair, most people I ask cannot give any coherent noncontradictory explanation of what these words mean at all. I think of the words I listed maybe 'opinion' and 'valid' can be given some vaguely reasonable interpretation but I literally never encountered anyone who used the words 'fact', 'objective' or 'subjective' in a way that was remotely useful.

The only context I've encountered wherein 'valid' has a clear meaning is when we use it to describe a deductive argument. Such an argument is valid if and only if the conclusion follows from the premises. A 'valid opinion' or 'valid fact' is meaningless nonsense. Opinions are not valid or invalid but true or false and the word fact is so ill defined that I propose nobody uses it at all as it only leads to confusion. As for opinion, I typically use 'concivtion' or 'belief' these days. It means the same but strangely most people seem, like the OP, to instantly turn into wishy-washy relativists the moment they hear or use the word opinion. Opinions can be wrong. If it is your opinion that the sun orbits the earth or that napoleon was a greek philosopher than your opinion is false.

In any case, if someone has to use such pseudo-epistemological terms they probably aren't making their case very well, or are getting distracted.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

SNIP

You're right, I should clarify. Having an opinion that cites facts that are provably untrue is not a valid opinion.

And dude, I've been here for years. I lived through GamerGate. Trust me, you won't find many PC thought police here. They were purged when the Escapist dared to put up an Ethics guideline.

 

[beyondbrainmatter]

Something that social justice advocates keep saying finally bothered me. They are always saying that certain opinions are not "valid". Opinions are subjective. Being subjective means they are not burden by the truth. For example, someone could say, "I believe that the sun is not yellow." As an opinion, it is disagreeable. If someone is declaring, as a fact, that the sun is not yellow, then that fact is invalid. As someone once said, "You can have your opinions, but you can not have you own set of facts."

So, are people misusing the word "valid" when it comes to describing opinions?

There are two viewpoints really. One deals with logic: Arguments are considered valid if their (internal) logical structure is sound. If this isn't the case, then that would be a formal fallacy. The other way of looking at the issue is by way of argumentative theory (rhetorics). Informal fallacies tend to occur in regular every day settings; these are stock errors in reasoning.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy

 

[Hawki]

Experience with the subject matter in question, and ability to back up the opinion with reasonable argument and facts. E.g.:

-"Free trade is good/bad!" I'd be very wary of giving out such an opinion, since I have very little knowledge of economics, so I couldn't really call my opinion valid.

-"Climate change is a threat to the future of human civilization." I'm a bit more confident giving out that opinion, since I studied environmental management in uni (since changed gears career-wise), and I feel I can back that opinion up within historical context (shifts in climate in Earth's past and its effects on humans and other species), contemporary context (rising sea levels, lack of polar ice, spread of disease (e.g. malaria), heatwaves, temperature records, etc.), and societal context (question of 'climate refugees,' which is a hot topic in the Pacific for instance). I'd be wary of engaging in debate with an actual climate scientist for instance, but on the everyday level, I'd feel a bit more at ease.

Or, to top it off, "work of fiction a is bad/good." That's a perfectly valid opinion, as long as you've actually seen/read/played it firsthand. It's why I try to avoid directly mentioning Twilight/50 Shades of Grey, as I've never read/seen them bar some of the first Twilight novel, so despite widespread opinion, I don't feel at ease outright stating them to be bad. I'm probably not always innocent of not falling into such mindsets (e.g. aware of Uwe Bowl, even if I've never seen any of his films), but, well, I try.

Then again, there's always the idea of opinion flying in the face of consensus. For instance, I think 2001: A Space Odyssey is a lacklustre film. I'm not so deluded however, as to not recognise that I'm in the minority of thought in that area, and that I can't deny its influence on the genre.

 

[Recusant]

If your opinion is based on fuckheaded reasoning, then it's not valid. Homosexuals and blacks being inferior might be an opinion, but anyone who has that opinion can go fuck themselves.

What about the situation where it's not opinion, but fact? A population of nothing but homosexuals is very quickly going to die out; most of them can breed, but few will; genetic bottlenecking will finish them off. In that regard, they're inferior to straights. A population of black people (up until recently pre-modern times), while faring better, would've done rather poorly in Iceland; the lack of vitamin D would've made the average lifespan plummet. In that regard, they're inferior to white people (who, of course, would've done quite poorly in much of Africa). This is by no means an excuse to treat people badly, but the point is that compassion doesn't stem from logic.

And if "fuckheaded reasoning" warrants dismissing people entirely, then answer me this: what time is it?

Well, philosophically speaking, a valid opinion is one that is backed up by certain truths or facts and not just an individual's emotions. As you pointed out, ideoloques tend to exploid the term and the words such as "objectively", "literally" to discredid opposing world views without adressing any of the arguments that the detractor is bringing up. Here is an article one of my Twitter friends send me

https://www.buzzfeed.com/tasneemnashrulla/anti-affirmative-action-bake-sale

We'll not discuss the protest in order to avoid derailing the thread, but observe the comments on the article. There is a conversation between a group of people that think that the concervative students were treated unfairly and the most common reply is that their opinion isn't "valid" because it is "inherently" racist.

While there is an open debate if protesting against affirmative action is a bigoted stance or not, there is no debate that a questioning such a system is "inherently" racist. The article and the supporters of the writer claim that the desenting worldview is "invalid" because it is fueled by bigotry, however fail to explain the direct negative effect such a bake sale has on the lives of the POC students of the university.

Basically, a "valid" opinion is one that is based in reality. But we all know that "reality" can be rather hazy in social studies.

Wow, that was pretty awesome of those students. Ironically they actually had a valid opinion (that affirmative action hurts minorities due to labeling their achievements as due to their characteristics rather than their effort) while those against them that jumped on the racism bandwagon without listening to them were the ones with invalid opinions, acting on emotions.

Actually, it's worse than that. "Racism" has become such a bogeyman that uttering it seems to shut down thought altogether. It does not mean "treating blacks, hispanics, orientals, etc. worse than white people", it means "discriminating on the basis of race". Deciding that a person's skin color is reason enough to enslave them is racism. Deciding that a person's skin color is reason enough to admit them into a college is also racism. The questions that should be asked about such a program are "does it work?" and "is it worth the cost?". But no one's asking those questions (at least not among these students), so we have the bizarre situation of a group being called racist for opposing racist policies.

Life doesn't happen in a vacuum. Insisting on some kind of ideological moral purity in behavior when it impacts the real world is dangerous at best- it's not true that support of (or, indeed, an opposition to) affirmative action policies is stupid or invalid. There are legitimate reasons for holding either point of view, and it's not wrong or even unusual to have different beliefs on how much "damage" (of whatever kind) is too much before something should be stopped from doing it. The world increasingly seems to be losing touch with that, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

 

[Erttheking]

Snip

When that actually happens, let me know. Because no one ever thinks about what you're talking about when they're talking about what's wrong with homosexuals. No one thinks about homosexuals not being able to reproduce, they talk about how they're "sinful" or "forcing their lifestyle on us." And no one talks about how black people are inferior because of vitamin D, it's because they're "savages." Hatred doesn't stem from logic either, but people keep pretending that it does, that their hatred is justified. Their reasoning is fucked and isn't worth treating with any levels of seriousness.

Yeah, it does. 8:50 PM in -5 EST. Or do you want another time zone?

 

[Saltyk]

It agrees with your opinion. Duh.
Lots of people do this on the right and left. And they're all twats because of it. They say that the other person's opinion is racist, sexist, infringing on their religious freedom, [insert buzzword used to silence dissent here]. The proper response is to ignore people who try to silence you for "wrong think". Frankly, they're the ones in the wrong. Even if you do think Hitler did nothing wrong, you still have the right to your opinion. And they have the right to ignore you, but they don't have the right to silence you.

Ah, but I'm a Freedom of Speech nut. I'd be fine with the KKK having a parade that goes by 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I'd also be fine with any other group doing the same. My only requirement is that they don't get violent or incite violence.

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

 

[Cold Shiny]

When its mine.