What Makes An Opinion "Valid"?

[KissingSunlight]

Valid assumes an appeal to find consensus or discuss its parameters. If the hypothetical statement or example draws consideration as to its merit, or the structure of its circumstance, then it's 'valid' as far as I care. I remember dwelling on this a bit back when I was teaching. Class discussions often (and should) evolve far beyond the premise for which I started it, but it only became invalid when time, or the premise that started the discussion, didn't allow for any more traction on the initial ideas that should be contemplated.

As some random poster said before, 1+1=2 is a valid statement, it's not a valid question as much as; "But why can't it be 1+1=4?"

You could argue the validity of an opinion is notable a metaphysical exploration that precedes a statement. Given that a philosophical argument can operate on diametrically opposed universal constants concerning whether or not there is free will or whether the universe is deterministic or not, 'valid' is solely in terms of the initial premise.

Since nobody has called you out on your comically convoluted post, I will. If you truly glean your understanding of the world through this method, I feel sorry for you. You are suffering from some serious condition. However, given our previous discussions on this forum. It's more likely you are attempting to muddle the issue by being disingenuous.

The first paragraph: It sounds like the word you want to use is "irrelevant". If someone expresses an opinion that was relevant to the first subject of the conversation. However, the conversation has moved on to another topic. That opinion is irrelevant to the current topic of conversation.

The last paragraph: Good Grief! Really? Words like "valid" are so malleable they can mean whatever you want the word to mean. Upon closer review of what you said, you conflated "valid opinion" with "philosophical argument". I called out people who conflated the words "opinion" and "argument" in a post right before you posted.

Once again, I'll quote Shakespeare: You are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Since nobody has called you out on your comically convoluted post, I will. If you truly glean your understanding of the world through this method, I feel sorry for you. You are suffering from some serious condition. However, given our previous discussions on this forum. It's more likely you are attempting to muddle the issue by being disingenuous.

The first paragraph: It sounds like the word you want to use is "irrelevant". If someone expresses an opinion that was relevant to the first subject of the conversation. However, the conversation has moved on to another topic. That opinion is irrelevant to the current topic of conversation.

The last paragraph: Good Grief! Really? Words like "valid" are so malleable they can mean whatever you want the word to mean. Upon closer review of what you said, you conflated "valid opinion" with "philosophical argument". I called out people who conflated the words "opinion" and "argument" in a post right before you posted.

Once again, I'll quote Shakespeare: You are full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Kay. I fail to see how it's convoluted. Would you like me to explain something for you? If people are having an appropriately esoteric argument, then what makes even a convoluted response invalid? For example, if people were having a discussion of intransigence in Eastern philosophy and its implications on Zen Buddhism .... and this brought up discussions about the nature of religiosity and the condition of the divine of Japanese deities, the discussion of this only becomes 'invalid' if there is an appeal to consensus that time or traction on the initial premise may allow. The question, the opinion, must be given weight to include the time necessary to be properly examined... and the time and resources that will allow for the greatest 'adventure' of the extents of the premise... before a legitimate question of validity can be raised beyond simply time and its reasonableness in an opinion existing.

If this thought alone makes you 'feel sorry for me' then I doubt I'm the one with the problem.

For example, as a teacher with 45 minutes to communicate an idea to 25 students, a student bringing up this discussion in my history class would probably be shut down and I'd try to drag it back to the initial premise. I just don't have the time and the consensus necessary to impart a solid meaning, a milestone of comprehension, will not be found.

If I had a DAY to argue and contemplate the discussion, then it may very well be a valid point of discussion. I also apologize if that sounds 'disingenuous' to you. I mean... time and barter breeding understanding!? Perish the thought! Also, you can quote Shakespeare ... but it does your argument no favours. Maybe there was a reason why others didn't 'call out my convoluted post'. But given the irony of this, and what I wrote, is quite piquant ... I'll just finish by saying that compromise is a virtue. Yes, there is a malleability of concepts when it comes to other people.

The question of the invalidity of opinions is relative solely to the amount of time necessary that one can examine all the bridges of thought that lead to it. In a perfect world, I'd have all day exploring how a student came to an idea ... not merely consider their idea invalid. But given that none of us can live this perfect existence, then I find it an invalid response. I have to settle with making sure they understand that not all ideas, even if they emerged in relation to a premise, can be explored (at least not on the time I have to examine it)... thus the invalidity of their ideas may arise solely by me proclaiming a necessity to the consensus that time will allow. Not necessarily that their opinion is 100% wrong.

If we are to assume that opinions can be inductive, then we should assume an opinion may not be valid without also being unexaminable or wrong. Maybe they are necessarily complex, but only seem unreasonable given that an opinion claims neither a deductive paradigm, nor the time necessary to explore as it is extremely complex.

(Edit) This happens in mathematics, hard science, and liberal arts. I remember the maths test I took outside highschool because by that time I had already enlisted in the army. I worked out the the distance of two objects relative to eachother but the expression of the mathematics involved was excessive ... so full points for the answer, big fat 'X' next to the methodology.

It's true... my systems of thought were considered 'invalid' (convoluted, mainly because I simply wrote in English how I came to it), but the resultant answer to which my thoughts analysed the problem were right on the money. Bad reasoning because the answer relied on less variables that needn't be involved. I did actually successfully argue that I get full points due to a head injury I suffered, which made me forget half the symbols I had learnt (or moreso due to trauma I found it difficult to work through the problem without using words rather than representative figures). But that was more of a 'gimme' on compassionate grounds rather than a strictly academic one. Point is... the invalidity of ideas is constrained when you take complexity of thought and boil it down to where it means nothing at all.

All the times I have said; "Okay... that's a pretty cool idea but we need to focus on the question at hand..." I could have been shutting down the next seminal mind in history and historiographical thought from fully discussing a new contemplation of the human condition. Invalidity of opinion does not necessarily mean wrong when you do not examine the passage of thought, but rather represents an appeal to discriminating ideas to form a consensus with the time and parameters of a premise given. The whole point of academia is the evolution of thought through the compromise that something wrong may be right when the necessary complexity has been accounted for.

Whether for the propositioning party, or the respondent, refuse the entry of a new thought. For instance; "Gay people need Jesus..." is going to render any merit of its discussion on the peculiarities of what the propositioning party deems as correlational to the premise. Compromise is necessary ... one (the propositional entity) needs to accept that the premise may be flawed directly to have a valid argument ... and the respondent needs to compromise in having to address how it is invalid if it is going to be a valid disagreement.

'Validity' and 'invalidity' of opinions can be examined purely in terms of; "How much effort, and how long it takes, to remove/explore doubts if they exist." The more doubt you have and the more time you have to dwell on it, the more 'valid' a counter opinion may be.

 

[FalloutJack]

Which means that this statement is false because you made an opinion.

I'll never understand why people treat this as an all-or-nothing sort of thing.

It's almost as if people are allowed opinions on opinions.

Well, the problem with trying to make an absolute statement as you were is that...you can't. It has to be right all of the time for you to be correct. You deny valid opinions, ergo you believe your statement to be a fact, but it since it cannot be always right, it must have exceptions. And with exceptions, the absolute statement just becomes wrong. Just as all opinions cannot be true is wrong, so goes the same for all opinions being wrong, whereas the statement that there are some valid opinions is right because it's a bit more general and moderate in thinking, therefore more likely. Such is life.

 

[Derekloffin]

Well, for starters, there are two types of opinions that are getting a bit conflated together there:
1. let's call it the professional opinion. This is your judgment on a matter of fact. 'it is my professional opinion that the dna comes from the defendant'. Since this one is grounded in facts and logic, it can be invalidated by showing the facts used are incorrect or incomplete in important ways, or the logic is faulty. However, there is also uncertainty so there is a certain level of subjectiveness to this.
2. the purely subjective opinion. 'this painting sucks!' This type of opinion can be unpopular, but not invalidated. The only fact in question is actual knowledge of the subject in question, but if that is the case, there is nothing left to invalidate as no logic is used, nor any real facts.

Some people will try to shield their type 1s by saying they are type 2s, but the moment you bring up some facts or logic, if fault can be found in those, then it can be invalidated. However, on the other hand, lots of people trying to claim invalidation based on fallacious logic as well.

 

[Strazdas]

As others already answered, the opinions validity is based on factual information and reasoning behind it. saying 1+1=4 is not a valid opinion because it is factually wrong. saying 1+1=2 is a valid opinion because it is factually correct.

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.

There was a pretty good discussion a few years ago in the medical community how based on different genetic makeup between white and black skinned people some medicine is more effective if designed specifically by taking those genetic differences into account. this discussion was shut down as "Racist" and people that published peer reviewed papers proving effectiveness of certain medicine to differ based on this makeup pretty much barred from industry. Because according to you everyone thinks people talking about racial differences are racist we now have inferior medicine. So yes, there are people talking about differences in that regard and they are dismissed as good 'ol racists/sexists/whatever by people with agendas to push.

 

[KissingSunlight]

snip

If you need all day to explain something, there is a good chance that your reasoning is unnecessarily convoluted and excessive. For all your digressions in your long post, you still haven't explained why a subjective statement can and should be considered "valid" or "invalid".

You are still arguing that words can be malleable. If we overthink and twist the meanings of words to absurd lengths, you can define whatever words you want to mean anything that you want them to be. That is ridiculous. We should justly call out people who intentionally try to destroy reasonable conversation with such illogical methods. How would you like it if someone just comes up with different definitions of words that you are using to make a point? I would guess that you would not like that very much.

I really don't know what you were trying to add to this topic. Other than, you were looking for an excuse to put all the big words you can think of in a post and try to make it sound like that you had a coherent thought.

 

[KissingSunlight]

As others already answered, the opinions validity is based on factual information and reasoning behind it. saying 1+1=4 is not a valid opinion because it is factually wrong. saying 1+1=2 is a valid opinion because it is factually correct.

Saying "1+1=2" is not an opinion. It's a fact.

There was an earlier post where asking "Why can 1+1=4?" That is not so much as an opinion than a question. It is a valid question if the person asking doesn't know basic arithmetic. Most likely, a young kid who is trying to understand basic math. If an adult person who clearly understands basic math asks that question, that person is clearly asking the question in a dishonest way.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

If you need all day to explain something, there is a good chance that your reasoning is unnecessarily convoluted and excessive. For all your digressions in your long post, you still haven't explained why a subjective statement can and should be considered "valid" or "invalid".

Garbage, people have spent days talking amongst themselves about the evidential, logical, cosmological and ontological problems of evil, God, and the universe. In real time no less. The idea of convoluted is relative solely to complexity of what you're discussing. More complexity, more time and the greater barter of ideas necessary. Senators have performed filibusters going 17 hours, preparing an exhaustive tome of information as to the body of what they're 'bustering about ... without even taking a piss break to press an issue and not remove themselves from the floor.

It's also precisely the reason why so many inductive theorems can be seen as invalid to begin with. As per dictionary definition they are unreasonable or unsound to exist in certain social paradigms (like a 45 minute class in highschool), not even taking into account right or wrong to begin with.

You are still arguing that words can be malleable. If we overthink and twist the meanings of words to absurd lengths, you can define whatever words you want to mean anything that you want them to be. That is ridiculous. We should justly call out people who intentionally try to destroy reasonable conversation with such illogical methods. How would you like it if someone just comes up with different definitions of words that you are using to make a point? I would guess that you would not like that very much.

No, I'm questioning that people are malleable. Words evolve, but due to popular consensus of their meaning and intent in portraying or transmission. We make up words all the time to denote a fracturing or reassessment of what was once a cohesive whole body of knowledge or substance. An argument, whether inductive or deductive, will not work on some people as much as they will work on other people. Which is what leads to such lengthy discussions to begin. Some people will consider valid some passage or phrase if it links to a body of research or knowledge that they consider sound. For another, the reasoning may be invalid due to their own critique on the situations of existence.

Which is why the premise and time determine the condition of validity. If you assume a universe of causal relationships requiring little self-meaning of its individual parts (Though not all do, and there are other problems with this thought ... but assuming that you do), any topic may (should) be considered valid in examination when discussing a premise.It's the consideration of time that will determine whether the input is valid or not.

If you hve a one hour panel discussion, the conditions of valid input will be anything you can say in about 3 minutes assuming a 6 person panel with multiple rounds. If you take two philosophers spending a lifetime of correspondence, then the complexity will be just that ... a lifetime of correspondence.

I really don't know what you were trying to add to this topic. Other than, you were looking for an excuse to put all the big words you can think of in a post and try to make it sound like that you had a coherent thought.

Then why bother responding? You do this in every topic.

 

[KissingSunlight]

If you need all day to explain something, there is a good chance that your reasoning is unnecessarily convoluted and excessive. For all your digressions in your long post, you still haven't explained why a subjective statement can and should be considered "valid" or "invalid".

Garbage, people have spent days talking amongst themselves about the evidential, logical, cosmological and ontological problems of evil, God, and the universe. In real time no less. Senators have performed filibusters going 17 hours, preparing an exhaustive tome of information as to the body of what they're 'bustering about ... without even taking a piss break to press an issue and not remove themselves from the floor.

It's also precisely the reason why so many inductive theorems can be seen as invalid to begin with. As per dictionary definition they are unreasonable or unsound to exist in certain social paradigms (like a 45 minute class in highschool), not even taking into account right or wrong to begin with.

You are still arguing that words can be malleable. If we overthink and twist the meanings of words to absurd lengths, you can define whatever words you want to mean anything that you want them to be. That is ridiculous. We should justly call out people who intentionally try to destroy reasonable conversation with such illogical methods. How would you like it if someone just comes up with different definitions of words that you are using to make a point? I would guess that you would not like that very much.

No, I'm questioning that people are malleable. Words evolve, but due to popular consensus of their meaning and intent in portraying or transmission. We make up words all the time to denote a fracturing or reassessment of what was once a cohesive whole body of knowledge or substance. An argument, whether inductive or deductive, will not work on some people as much as they will work on other people. Which is what leads to such lengthy discussions to begin. Some people will consider valid some passage or phrase if it links to a body of research or knowledge that they consider sound. For another, the reasoning may be invalid due to their own critique on the situations of existence.

I really don't know what you were trying to add to this topic. Other than, you were looking for an excuse to put all the big words you can think of in a post and try to make it sound like that you had a coherent thought.

Then why bother responding? You do this in every topic.

There are certain arguments that people can make that will essentially disqualify themselves from getting themselves taken seriously. Congratulations! You just made one of them. It's the statement I bolded in your post. When people deny validity of definitions of words in a dictionary, that is a clear signal that you can not have a rational conversation with that person.

You asked me an interesting question. Why did I bother responding to you, when I know you haven't debated the issues in an honest manner. I guess it's my annoying faith in people. I feel that there is more to a person than their desire to screw with another person. With you, that faith is obviously misplaced. Like you said, people are malleable. You feel you can BS people into believing whatever you are saying. You are not interested in a reasonable debate or discussion. I guess a fair question to ask you is: Why do you bother trying to engage in discussion or debate with other people? If you have no intention in having a honest discussion.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

here are certain arguments that people can make that will essentially disqualify themselves from getting themselves taken seriously. Congratulations! You just made one of them. It's the statement I bolded in your post. When people deny validity of definitions of words in a dictionary, that is a clear signal that you can not have a rational conversation with that person.

No, not necessarily. That wasn't my argument at all. I'm saying the validity or invalidity of an opinion can be relative solely to premise and the time it takes to explain its causality. Secondly, why do discussions have to be based on reason? I've had discussions with scientists purely on the basis of empirical data ... because, hey ... that was what the gig was all about. Helping compile data.

Any argument or discussion beyond; "So, how would you transform this data into a report?..." which, regardless of how professional you are, is still going to rely on some form of subjectivity. If only through how one applies scientific measurements or translates data into information, as part of the educational process of studying for this stuff was simply tossing a student a bone and getting their input to test whether they understood what the data actually means.

You asked me an interesting question. Why did I bother responding to you, when I know you haven't debated the issues in an honest manner. I guess it's my annoying faith in people. I feel that there is more to a person than their desire to screw with another person. With you, that faith is obviously misplaced. Like you said, people are malleable. You feel you can BS people into believing whatever you are saying. You are not interested in a reasonable debate or discussion. I guess a fair question to ask you is: Why do you bother trying to engage in discussion or debate with other people? If you have no intention in having a honest discussion.

Right, like the time you called me racist for saying black people have more experience about being black in America? Actually point to me where in the initial post I made that you have some qualm as to its existence. All you ever seem to do is cast aspersions. Then answer the simple question, who is actually being honest here? Because I have maintained the same argument since the first post 'til now and all you have done so far is prove you have a contempt for anybody that questions your line of thinking.

You'll kindly notice how I never seem to be the first one to delve into personal insults in all of these 'barrages' ... surely this is a better examination of whether a reasonable or methodical discussion with someone can be had. Whether your company starts getting mouthy and does little more than that. Hell ... I even offered to explain parts of the posts because I figure my 'faith' that people can have a bad day requires diplomacy, not retort ... but frankly given you constantly do this, I'm starting to assume you do this with all people you have a problem with.

(Edit) To put it bluntly, the validity of questioning a purely rational conceptualisation of 1+1=2 is no different from the purely rational conceptualisation of the validity of asking yourself or another; "But why can't it also be 1+1=4?" Whether you're a rationalist or empiricist, asking yourself concepts like this is valid for it can breed valid query and examines an epistemological conception.

This is no different from any other field of study, and only loses its meaning for when you account the nature of the philosophical absurd. Subjectivity does not suggest validity or invalidity on its own (but can still be valid or invalid through conception). Inductive theorems seek to persuade, not to prove, and they are often the backbone of all future research or examination of a conceptualisation of reality.

Facts are not the beginning and end of meaning. Incredibly thought provoking, history making conjecture can be built upon ... say the Irenaean theodicy and the Augustinian theodicy about the nature of salvation. Hence why you have many Catholics who espouse that universal salvation is a thing (regardless of your relationship to 'evil' or your personal beliefs), and some Catholics espouse that universal salvation is possible, but not likely (and is determined by your relationship to evil or your relationship to Christianity). These sorts of questions and concepts are valid and determined through the subjective lens of the concepts of evil and the human condition, and can shape the very process of thought and culture for centuries.

There is a reason why some Christians scream of hellfire and brimstone for eternity, and why so many Christians speak that the love of God and sacrifice of Christ means none shall suffer needlessly (and thus no hellfire and brimstone for eternity, just until one achieves moral growth through hardship) ... for God is just and seeks only the fortitude of His children to stave off the corruption of sinful thought, and thus guarantee all humanity a place in Heaven. Concepts of mercy, love, paternalism, strength and free will.

Such concepts are not valid or invalid on their own (at least not yet), and there is a expanse of philosophy behind it all to explain the what, how, why, and when of evil and its punishment. And the philosophy of it is still grounded on law and explorations of evil. Not fact. Still valid in its discussion concerning its premise, regardless of the subjectivity of evil and its design.

You don't even need to be a theist or deist to have these discussions. Because personal belief is not required for their discussion. The theodicies are grounded on the praxis of philosophy and theosophy.

For example; in The Brothers Karamazov Dostoyevsky brings us the logical critique of a benevolent God, even one that grants salvation to all. In that a protagonist wishes to renounce Heaven, but not moral growth. The idea being that if God grants free will, and allows natural evil to persist to challenge us to do good and grow with hardship, God's company must be a curse and Hell is probably populated with the many decent people who you wish to spend eternity with. Ergo, if the explanation of natural evil is merely a test of human character to challenge and overthrow... God cannot be a moral being whether he wills, or merely allows it, to persist ... and salvation flies in the face of a moral being's claim to provide free will.

The protagonist suggests two things. That if God allows natural evil for him to be moral, he does not want to spend an eternity with God. He wants to spend an eternity with people like himself who go out and wish to heal the world and end unnecessary suffering (as per God's 'suggestion'). But as a moral being he only wishes to spend eternity with people like himself who he theorizes must also wish to renounce heaven but not good will. And that as a free willed entity who can choose to be saved, God must recognize his will to not be with anybody but other moral beings who must come to the same conclusion, yet do not want to compromise on their good nature.

The character is not an atheist, rather he believes God exists. He just loathes Him and wishes to have nothing to do with such an apathetic, distant father figure. Something that will inevitably force him to entertain the company of tyrants who demand suffering for reward, or suffering eternally for him standing on good moral principle and exercising his liberty.

Entirely subjective, entirely based outside fact. Entirely logical critique of a benevolent deity. But not necessarily valid or invalid ... but merely the potential of validity and invalidity based on the discussion (or the metaphysical examination or assumption that an argument has at its core, for Dostoyevsky's argument does not hold true for all theodicies concerning God, the conceptualisation of evil and the nature and existence of free will).

This is assuming you feel something like theology is a noteworthy (or valid) field of study, and given how much theological rhetoric has influenced humanity I would say it is. If only because it imparts a truth to the human condition and an explanation for many cultural facets of its being. These concepts do not become invalid solely because they are not based on factual information, however (or arguably it is if you're not an Irenaean and yet need to counter the idea of natural evil). The validity of an opinion is not measured on its own 'subjectivity' or 'objectivity', but rather the measure it has to an existing metaphysical paradigm(s) of thought that lead to its construction and the time and apparent relevance it has to explain itself.

A story about a man renouncing Heaven but not good works is convoluted. But the construction of the narrative around it gives it *meaning* beyond the subjectivity, objectivity, or facticity of the story's construction and the metaphysical statement it makes. Making it a valid opinion on the condition of Abraham's God if there is a premise concerning the issues it has raised. With or without facticity.

I'm sorry if you feel like bringing this up is 'bullshit' or 'dishonest' to you.

 

[Fieldy409_v1legacy]

Im a carpenter who never went to University. If I declared some complicated scientific thing like Quantum Physics or whatever were wrong and all those trained scientists were idiots, would my opinion be valid?

Often the people telling you your opinion is invalid on the internet are arrogant people trying to shut down debate(maybe explain why?), yet I wonder what makes us think opinions are so sacred? I honestly believe that every problem does have a correct answer for an ideal outcome, which makes somebody saying the opposite wrong. Sometimes we even allow people who are blatantly and provably wrong, especially in politics, to get away with what they say because we worship the right to opinions, prehaps its because of democracy and free speech that this idea is nurtured.

I think we all may need to remind ourselves that there is a right and a wrong, or maybe more accurately to say something like right, less right, less wrong, more wrong etc. and realise our opinions change nothing in the universe.

 

[FalloutJack]

Snip

We don't worship the right to completely idiotic opinions, though. People with those just tend to show up, anyway.

You'll kindly notice how I never seem to be the first one to delve into personal insults in all of these 'barrages'

An invalid opinion. In fact, an untrue one. You get very condescending and even name-calling when angered.

 

[King Billi]

It would appear that once an opinion is either validated or invalidated it no longer exists since an opinion is formed from a lack of specific information on a given topic. Once you have all the facts you no longer need an opinion since you just know.

Of course not all questions are easily answerable and not all opinions can be countered with facts in spite what a lot of people might insist. Ignorance can lead both ways and personally I'd just expect someone to be able to explain their opinion in a somewhat coherant manner whether it seem "correct" or "incorrect" for me to consider it valid.

People should at least be able to understand why they themselves hold an opinion they do.

 

[Strazdas]

As others already answered, the opinions validity is based on factual information and reasoning behind it. saying 1+1=4 is not a valid opinion because it is factually wrong. saying 1+1=2 is a valid opinion because it is factually correct.

Saying "1+1=2" is not an opinion. It's a fact.

There was an earlier post where asking "Why can 1+1=4?" That is not so much as an opinion than a question. It is a valid question if the person asking doesn't know basic arithmetic. Most likely, a young kid who is trying to understand basic math. If an adult person who clearly understands basic math asks that question, that person is clearly asking the question in a dishonest way.

No, it is opinion that is based on fact. It is because it is based on fact that it is a valid opinion. Yes, this is semantics, but thats the topic.

 

[FalloutJack]

As others already answered, the opinions validity is based on factual information and reasoning behind it. saying 1+1=4 is not a valid opinion because it is factually wrong. saying 1+1=2 is a valid opinion because it is factually correct.

Saying "1+1=2" is not an opinion. It's a fact.

There was an earlier post where asking "Why can 1+1=4?" That is not so much as an opinion than a question. It is a valid question if the person asking doesn't know basic arithmetic. Most likely, a young kid who is trying to understand basic math. If an adult person who clearly understands basic math asks that question, that person is clearly asking the question in a dishonest way.

No, it is opinion that is based on fact. It is because it is based on fact that it is a valid opinion. Yes, this is semantics, but thats the topic.

1+1=2 is not an opinion unless you want bad math grades. Bottom line. An opinion based upon a fact is a drawn conclusion from a fact that makes sense, but is not not as widely proven. Stephen Hawking has some very good ideas on how a black hole functions, based upon all scientific data available. He can't get close enough to measure it with anything, but the theory is sound. (Also has the good decency to adjust his thoughts as new data comes in.)

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

Opinions only relate to subjective statements, which is why all opinions can be valid. The definition of subjective means that's its true for some but not for others. "Chocolate is better than Vanilla" may be true for me but not for you. All opinions carry the unspoken appendix "to me". I.E. "Chocolate tastes better than vanilla to me." With that appendix, all opinions are valid. Even widely rebuked ones like "Child rape is morally acceptable".

Statements about objective truths such as 1+1=2 are not opinions. Scientific theories are not opinions, they are theories. Steven Hawking doesn't have opinions on how black holes work, he has theories which are either true or false. Religious beliefs are also not opinions. If God is real, he is real for all of us. Therefore, the statement "God is real" is not an opinion. "Homosexuality is immoral and disgusting" is an opinion, but "God hates gays" is not.

 

[KissingSunlight]

snip

I am guessing you are trying to win this debate by posting a wall of text. Even posting a cliff notes version of a Dostoyevsky novel.

OK, let's say you are right. Words and facts are meaningless. If that is true, everything that you have been saying is also meaningless. Is that really something that you want to advocate for?

Right, like the time you called me racist for saying black people have more experience about being black in America? Actually point to me where in the initial post I made that you have some qualm as to its existence.

We've done this before. I have already pull out the original posts. I stated anyone who dismiss an opinion of a person on the basis of their race or gender is a bigot. You responded, "Which nobody has done." Then you went on to justify that it's appropriate to dismiss white people opinions about the judicial system, because black people are criminals. You were shocked that I called you a "racist". Of course, the last time I confronted you with those posts. You ignored what was posted, and kept denying what you did.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

An invalid opinion. In fact, an untrue one. You get very condescending and even name-calling when angered.

You're one to talk. The conversation you are referring to? Even you didn'tpretend who started that verbal spate. And not an untrue opinion, because the inference was the discussion between me and KS ... last three conversations have been like this. Seriously, scroll up. This is how it starts. Frankly the third time's the charm, tbh.

Not sure what I wrote that triggered such a response, maybe a third eye to my post may help? I wrote something I thought was a fairly innocuous remark. So far I don't think they've written a counter-argument. Not unless it was hidden amidst the general unpleasantness.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

We've done this before. I have already pull out the original posts. I stated anyone who dismiss an opinion of a person on the basis of their race or gender is a bigot. You responded, "Which nobody has done." Then you went on to justify that it's appropriate to dismiss white people opinions about the judicial system, because black people are criminals. You were shocked that I called you a "racist". Of course, the last time I confronted you with those posts. You ignored what was posted, and kept denying what you did.

What, the one where you selected one paragraph, ignoring the first and last? Pull it up again, by all means ... maybe this time you'll read the entire post rather than get triggered over something clearly taken out of context. Also, I didn't assume that at all ... the statistics on the matter quite thoroughly show that black people in America face higher incarceration rates by capita. So if you want an opinion on the justice system, you go to the people most likely to get banged up, or already are ... and you talk to the kids, the spouses, the parents of those on the inside etc.

Secondly, dismissing an answer because it's long and comes replete with examples? I might accept the long part, but you complained when I didn't provide examples ... now you're complaining that I did? For starters, do you actually have a counter-argument? I'm not trying to 'win' anything (you quoted me, remember?) I'm showing you how an opinion's validity/invalidity is solely in its construction and the time to understand relevance, not whether it operates on a subjective paradigm, or operates outside of facts.

Do you actually have a relevant point in question?

 

[Pseudonym]

I'm going to regret this post, if only because when I inevitably make some grammatical error myself I can't, without hypocrisy, complain when people point it out to me.

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.

Ehm, that definition you quoted clearly states that the word 'valid' in that meaning applies to arguments or points, not to opinions. Maybe you could say that an opinion is valid if there is a valid argument backing it up, but your quoted definition doesn't say that.

Valid assumes an appeal to find consensus or discuss its parameters.

Holy moly, that is impressively ungrammatical.

You used 'valid' as a noun. You wrote 'valid assumes' even though actually only people assume anything and abstract concepts like validity don't. Then you 'assume an appeal' when you seem to mean that you assume an attempt. Even then it would be better to say who you assume to be appealing or attempting something. You have 'an appeal to do something' when in fact one appeals to something. For example, I can appeal to your reasoning, but 'I appeal you to reason' is ungrammatical. It is entirely unclear where 'its' refers to, you might mean the paramaters of consensus or of the paramaters of validity, neither of which makes any sense. I think you were trying to say something like 'Appealing to validity in a discussion only works when the parties involved are trying to reach consensus.' though I'm genuinely not sure. You might have meant something entirely different for all I know. The rest of your text isn't any more readable, sadly.

As others already answered, the opinions validity is based on factual information and reasoning behind it. saying 1+1=4 is not a valid opinion because it is factually wrong. saying 1+1=2 is a valid opinion because it is factually correct.

Saying "1+1=2" is not an opinion. It's a fact.

If you want to be this as pedantic about the meaning of words then I would interject that it is neither. Saying something is an act. I honestly don't know what you two think you disagree about anyway. Strazdas' statement 'saying 1+1=2 is a valid opinion because it is factually correct.' and KissingSunlight's '"1+1=2" is a fact' express pretty much the same thing, when I interpret the two statements charitably.

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.

When two people hold opinions which contradict one another, at least one of their opinions must not conform to reality. Does that automatically mean that one of them is not worthy of consideration. Doesn't that undermine the whole point of rational discourse. We very often don't know what conforms to reality and what doesn't. We consider an opinion and only after the consideration we conclude, if we reach a conclusion at all, whether or not we think it conforms to reality, which ussually we don't know with certainty.