What Makes An Opinion "Valid"?

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Yes, I am one to talk, because I wasn't doing anything wrong, but you decided to call names. You can't call me out when you're at fault.

Uh huh ... then link the argument in question. Where it began, and let others judge that for themselves. I call garbage that I was the one being condescending and crude. I even politely explained how labour is directly related to energy production, the reason why fuel is used, and you dismissed it out of hand ... nor did you even bother to justify why you dismissing the political considerations of labour out of hand.

Otherwise thoroughly off-topic.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

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.

'Valid attempts' does make more sense if you consider the judgment of invalidity or validity as something impersonal to the argument, or has some quantifiable reason for being wrong. I should have used 'attempts'. I must admit what you wrote is clearer. It's not as if I'm preparing an essay, so I think it boils down to laziness on my part.

Given that you nailed the general meaning, I don't see the problem.

 

[FalloutJack]

Yes, I am one to talk, because I wasn't doing anything wrong, but you decided to call names. You can't call me out when you're at fault.

Uh huh ... then link the argument in question. Where it began, and let others judge that for themselves.

Nah, I'll just link the part where you decided to call me a ****.

... is there something wrong with that examination? Or are you bring a **** for the sake of being a ****?

Anyone who wants to read the whole thing and form their own opinion is down to them. My read of it is that you were reacting badly towards my effort to steer you on-topic. Since I was not being malicious in any form, even 'subtly', you were pretty much out of line. You can't take your temper out on people like that.

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

Yes, I am one to talk, because I wasn't doing anything wrong, but you decided to call names. You can't call me out when you're at fault.

Uh huh ... then link the argument in question. Where it began, and let others judge that for themselves.

Nah, I'll just link the part where you decided to call me a ****.

... is there something wrong with that examination? Or are you bring a **** for the sake of being a ****?

Anyone who wants to read the whole thing and form their own opinion is down to them. My read of it is that you were reacting badly towards my effort to steer you on-topic. Since I was not being malicious in any form, even 'subtly', you were pretty much out of line. You can't take your temper out on people like that.

Why not? I asked repeatedly what was wrong about the discussion. Your reply each time was to ignore the discussion. You merely said; "You're off-topic..." I hanfle one thing badly (though only in response to someone bullshitting about the nature of the discussion), doesn't relinquish a person of their responsibility in winding someone up.

Snip

That's facinating, but you haven't really demonstrated anything. You're dismissed because you've provided nothing, just some banter about human labor and stuff. I'm afraid you're the one going 'nuh uh' here.

In fact you're even taking that post out of context now.

Let's not theorize about what you think I think. I'll say what I'm thinking, and what I think is that your condescending attitude doesn't belong in this discussion.

Stop calling me black.

I'm just gonna wait for you to watch a documentary or something, because you don't seem to know what's been going on with that. I don't think you really understand people or the motivations behind invention, so you go do some research, alright? I already suggested a good one to see. Connections is awesome, but there's others, I'm sure.

Oh, and you're still off-topic.

This was your second reply to me. I wasn't condescending before. Now I am. And frankly you've done nothing to engage.

"Why don't you fuck off and do (x)..." is not engaging. Do you actually have a point in conjecture or don't you?

Anybody reading my prior post wouldn't see it 'non-engagement'... I provided historical examples, a baseline economic theory about 'free energy' (if by free what if something cheaper merely emerged... what effect will it have?) ... is there something wrong with that examination? Or are you bring a **** for the sake of being a ****?

OH... and for reference sake...

inu-kun:

Okay I think I calmed down.
So let's go with an interesting question, let's say a zero cost, zero emission (or at least close to that) with world wide availability (meaning it can be made everywhere without dependency on a single source) fuel source was developed and it's formula was released for free online. What would happen in the political landscape?
Edit: fixed bad English.

You were completely out of line. The discussion was about politics, not specifics of an energy source. Entirely relevant to bring up ideas of labour, and economic developments. Furthermore, it was entirely relevant in an expanding discussion of automation, and whether or not automation would be the result of cheap/free, pollution-free energy sources in relation to labour saving measures. I argued against that (with another poster, you simply bullshitted and said my reply was as if off-topic) because human labour in many parts of the world would still be cheaper than robotics. Plus humans demand control over what they hold dear. Convenience doesn't cactor into it. Star Trek would be boring if people sat by their replicators all day shoving chocolate cake into their gobs.

Apparently this wasn't political enough for you.

I asked repeatedly, what is your stand on as to what cheapp/free energy for all would do. And you ignored that, and even said I was off-topic solely because I didn't talk about the energy source itself, even when that wasn't the discussion to begin with or what the OP asked. I made the assumption you had a problem with me, because other posters were talking about the rise of A.I. and robotics and yet you clearly had no problem with them having that discussion.

So I called out your behaviour. I'm not proud of it, the tone should have been diplomatic... but by that point my patience had waned.

 

[BeeGeenie]

Scientifically testable evidence makes your opinion valid. Anything less makes your opinion essentially worthless.

 

[KissingSunlight]

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?

No, I think this conversation is done. Your stand on the topic is that words are meaningless. In the paradigm of my conversations with you, I agree. The words that you say on the issues are meaningless.

I'm glad we had this talk.

 

[KissingSunlight]

Scientifically testable evidence makes your opinion valid. Anything less makes your opinion essentially worthless.

Is something "worthless" makes it "invalid"? If someone said, "Chocolate ice cream is the best." Would that opinion be invalid?

 

[Addendum_Forthcoming]

No, I think this conversation is done. Your stand on the topic is that words are meaningless. In the paradigm of my conversations with you, I agree. The words that you say on the issues are meaningless.

I'm glad we had this talk.

I didn't write that at all, in fact your reactions are more telling of the problem of validity and invalidity and the question of time. I wrote on this point before and you simply ignored it.

No, I'm questioning that people are malleable. Words evolve, 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.

And frankly, yeah. Given your general attitude, it's plain to see you have no wish to engage honestly.

 

[CaitSeith]

Being subjective means they are not burden by the truth.

Citation needed. Otherwise you're trying to pass your opinion as a factual premise in this discussion.

Try a dictionary.

o-pin-ion
[əˈpinyən]

NOUN
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge:

Sorry for the delay. I was asking about subjective.

sub-jec-tive
[səbˈjektiv]

ADJECTIVE
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

The "not burdened by the truth" part is nowhere to be seen here, and all the definitions I found in dictionaries during my search don't have it either. That's why I asked in the first place. From where did you learned that definition?

 

[KissingSunlight]

Being subjective means they are not burden by the truth.

Citation needed. Otherwise you're trying to pass your opinion as a factual premise in this discussion.

Try a dictionary.

o-pin-ion
[əˈpinyən]

NOUN
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge:

Sorry for the delay. I was asking about subjective.

sub-jec-tive
[səbˈjektiv]

ADJECTIVE
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

The "not burdened by the truth" part is nowhere to be seen here, and all the definitions I found in dictionaries during my search don't have it either. That's why I asked in the first place. From where did you learned that definition?

How does the dictionary definition of "subjective" conflict with what I said? I essentially said the same thing in a different way. No where in the definition of "subjective" does it say it is based on, influenced, or burdened by the truth.

 

[CaitSeith]

Being subjective means they are not burden by the truth.

Citation needed. Otherwise you're trying to pass your opinion as a factual premise in this discussion.

Try a dictionary.

o-pin-ion
[əˈpinyən]

NOUN
a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge:

Sorry for the delay. I was asking about subjective.

sub-jec-tive
[səbˈjektiv]

ADJECTIVE
based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

The "not burdened by the truth" part is nowhere to be seen here, and all the definitions I found in dictionaries during my search don't have it either. That's why I asked in the first place. From where did you learned that definition?

How does the dictionary definition of "subjective" conflict with what I said? I essentially said the same thing in a different way. No where in the definition of "subjective" does it say it is based on, influenced, or burdened by the truth.

Exactly. Which means it might or it might not be influenced by the truth. That depends of the context. And this is how I see the validity of an opinion: it's directly dependent to the context. Why? Validity is an objective mesurament. To attach it to something subjective like an opinion, context is required (and some contexts require the truth). There is no valid/invalid opinion without context.

 

[KissingSunlight]

Exactly. Which means it might or it might not be influenced by the truth. That depends of the context. And this is how I see the validity of an opinion: it's directly dependent to the context. Why? Validity is an objective mesurament. To attach it to something subjective like an opinion, context is required (and some contexts require the truth). There is no valid/invalid opinion without context.

I think you need to reread the two definitions again. No where in either definitions of "opinion" or "subjective" does it say "It might be required to be true."

If an opinion isn't based on truth or facts, it is still an opinion. If you have facts or information that conflicts with what the person is saying, you can disagree with that opinion. It doesn't make the opinion invalid. It's valid to the person making the opinion. To dismiss somebody's opinion as "invalid", because you disagree with it. That is insulting to the person with the opinion.

 

[CaitSeith]

Exactly. Which means it might or it might not be influenced by the truth. That depends of the context. And this is how I see the validity of an opinion: it's directly dependent to the context. Why? Validity is an objective mesurament. To attach it to something subjective like an opinion, context is required (and some contexts require the truth). There is no valid/invalid opinion without context.

I think you need to reread the two definitions again. No where in either definitions of "opinion" or "subjective" does it say "It might be required to be true."

If an opinion isn't based on truth or facts, it is still an opinion. If you have facts or information that conflicts with what the person is saying, you can disagree with that opinion. It doesn't make the opinion invalid. It's valid to the person making the opinion. To dismiss somebody's opinion as "invalid", because you disagree with it. That is insulting to the person with the opinion.

They neither say "it might be required to not be true" either. But that's not the point. It isn't being true or false what makes the opinion invalid. It's firstmost the context. Context determines if the truth, facts, education, or experience are even a factor or not.

 

[KissingSunlight]

Exactly. Which means it might or it might not be influenced by the truth. That depends of the context. And this is how I see the validity of an opinion: it's directly dependent to the context. Why? Validity is an objective mesurament. To attach it to something subjective like an opinion, context is required (and some contexts require the truth). There is no valid/invalid opinion without context.

I think you need to reread the two definitions again. No where in either definitions of "opinion" or "subjective" does it say "It might be required to be true."

If an opinion isn't based on truth or facts, it is still an opinion. If you have facts or information that conflicts with what the person is saying, you can disagree with that opinion. It doesn't make the opinion invalid. It's valid to the person making the opinion. To dismiss somebody's opinion as "invalid", because you disagree with it. That is insulting to the person with the opinion.

They neither say "it might be required to not be true" either. But that's not the point. It isn't being true or false what makes the opinion invalid. It's firstmost the context. Context determines if the truth, facts, education, or experience are even a factor or not.

Facts are required to be true, not opinions. At most, you can disagree with an opinion. If the "context" that you are talking about is someone making an argument, and the person has included facts that are not true. You can declare that argument as invalid. Using valid facts to prove why the argument is invalid.

 

[CaitSeith]

Exactly. Which means it might or it might not be influenced by the truth. That depends of the context. And this is how I see the validity of an opinion: it's directly dependent to the context. Why? Validity is an objective mesurament. To attach it to something subjective like an opinion, context is required (and some contexts require the truth). There is no valid/invalid opinion without context.

I think you need to reread the two definitions again. No where in either definitions of "opinion" or "subjective" does it say "It might be required to be true."

If an opinion isn't based on truth or facts, it is still an opinion. If you have facts or information that conflicts with what the person is saying, you can disagree with that opinion. It doesn't make the opinion invalid. It's valid to the person making the opinion. To dismiss somebody's opinion as "invalid", because you disagree with it. That is insulting to the person with the opinion.

They neither say "it might be required to not be true" either. But that's not the point. It isn't being true or false what makes the opinion invalid. It's firstmost the context. Context determines if the truth, facts, education, or experience are even a factor or not.

Facts are required to be true, not opinions. At most, you can disagree with an opinion. If the "context" that you are talking about is someone making an argument, and the person has included facts that are not true. You can declare that argument as invalid. Using valid facts to prove why the argument is invalid.

For that you must had already established that false facts aren't valid for an argument. Discussing Theology involves arguments that science has proved false, and yet that doesn't make them invalid in that context. It's when these opinions don't match the context when they become invalid (like theological arguments in a scientific discussion about evolution).

 

[KissingSunlight]

For that you must had already established that false facts aren't valid for an argument. Discussing Theology involves arguments that science has proved false, and yet that doesn't make them invalid in that context. It's when these opinions don't match the context when they become invalid (like theological arguments in a scientific discussion about evolution).

Can facts be facts if it is not true? I still think you are conflating "opinion" with "argument". Also, the example of using religious text in a scientific discussion is a matter of relevancy. I know a lot of people use religious text to justify scientific beliefs. I think it is fair to declare those arguments as invalid.