- I have had so many conversations or email exchanges with students in the last few years wherein I anger them by indicating that simply saying, "This is my opinion" does not preclude a connected statement from being dead wrong. It still baffles me that some feel those four words somehow give them carte blanche to spout batshit oratory or prose. And it really scares me that some of those students think education that challenges their ideas is equivalent to an attack on their beliefs.
The people who you want to read this and take it to heart will use it against you. Because you don't know about study X and have never heard of it before, they have one more study than you under their belt, therefore they are basing their information on "fact" and not opinion. The fact that study Y exists and neither of you know about it because it's not either of your fields of study means that they win the debate due to ignorance on both sides of your small subset of the argument. I think the big thing is there is a rising culture of people who see something completely outrageous in story form and immediately believe it, instead of carefully examining the story's facts or even attempting to challenge it in their own mind. Perhaps they aren't capable of the critical thinking required or do not have the correct background in the field, but regardless, they just believe only the things they see that are the most outrageous. Subconsciously it's probably because of the desire for controversy and the desire for entertaining discussion.
I always thought that it's the desire to not have their egos' perfect image of self shattered. People get used to defend themselves when something arises that puts their knowledge at less than perfect position of "I don't yet know something and haven't yet chosen to ignore or study it".Subconsciously it's probably because of the desire for controversy and the desire for entertaining discussion.
Critical thinking skills would be great. I ran into them in high-school - but speech and debate is elective, and about as popular as Chess Club.
An opinion literally can't be wrong. It's a subjective claim. The article says opinions can be wrong, and then goes on to say what most people call opinions are just factual claims that are incorrect. Factual claims are not opinions. Opinions can't be wrong. Factual claims can. If you can say objectively one way or the other, it's not an opinion. Period.
But you can have an opinion on an objectively verifiable fact. For example, it is raining outside and I say, "In my opinion it is not raining outside." Beyond that I think we would be twisting ourselves up in technicalities because when someone uses 'opinion' the way that this article refers to it, what they are really saying is 'I know' or the state of 'knowing'. Hidden beneath this discussion is the real question: how do we know, what we claim to know? or more concisely: epistemology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology It is a vast field and definitely worthy of exploration by everyone. Ideally university students would avail themselves of at least one course to learn the basics and begin to learn how to think. This is the most important aspect of higher education after all.
You can have opinions about objectively verifiable facts. And you can also have opinions on fiction. That's not an opinion. And the assertion that it's not raining would be false. But that's not an opinion. Period. Just because you call it an opinion doesn't mean it is. Which is my point. Opinions objectively cannot be wrong. Do keep in mind my comment was more about the tone set by the original title, rather than the edited one (apparently it changed since I commented). Here's the original title for reference: As you can see, it's making an objectively incorrect statement. The new title ("No, it's not your opinion. You're just wrong") is much better and more accurately reflects what the article is talking about. Not really relevant, IMO.But you can have an opinion on an objectively verifiable fact.
For example, it is raining outside and I say, "In my opinion it is not raining outside."
Beyond that I think we would be twisting ourselves up in technicalities because when someone uses 'opinion' the way that this article refers to it, what they are really saying is 'I know' or the state of 'knowing'.
Yes, Your Opinion Can Be Wrong
Hidden beneath this discussion is the real question: how do we know, what we claim to know? or more concisely: epistemology
But you see that is the point, what one person may categorize as fiction, others may categorize as verifiable fact. That is the whole crux of the issue which you continue to miss completely. > "That's not an opinion." Of course it is an opinion. In fact, it is my opinion that it is an opinion :) Also, I think you may be defining opinion different than almost everyone else, myself included. The generally accepted definition is that opinions are beliefs or judgements about observable reality. And yes, such beliefs or judgements can be wrong. As such, they are intimately intertwined with the concept of 'knowing'. That is, how does one differentiate between 'knowing a thing to be true' and 'believing that a thing is true'. This is where epistemology enters the discussion. And you are categorically wrong in opining that it is not 'really relevant' ;)
Provided we are speaking english, and we both agree that fiction means something that does not correlate to observable peer reviewed reality, and that verifiable fact means an objective thing that can be observed, tested, and verified by multiple individuals, you can certainly say that someone is wrong or right. Whether or not you classify it as a fact is irrelevant. That's your opinion. And has no bearing on the actual reality of things. language is subjective. We can sit here and fight over definitions all day and never get to a consensus, because it's subjective and entirely an opinion. Well no. Excusing the subjectivity of language (it can be your opinion that what is currently happening shouldn't be classified as 'raining'), the fact of whether or not water is falling from the sky is not an opinion. It's objectively verifiable and testable. You may have opinions on what we classify this as, but that's a language game. Your opinion isn't about whether or not water is falling from the sky, but rather whether or not we should call it 'rain'. An opinion is an untestable subjective claim based on what 'should' be. This is a nonsensical definition. You are trying to claim opinions are true facts about reality. Which is nonsense. "The earth revolves around the sun" is not an opinion. "Rain falls from the sky" is not an opinion. Yet, both of these are beliefs/judgements about observable reality. "This website is hubski" is another one. It's not an opinion. That's because beliefs/judgements aren't opinions. Beliefs are incorrectly accepted facts. Judgements are just assertions. The former is certain, the latter is mistakenly certain.But you see that is the point, what one person may categorize as fiction, others may categorize as verifiable fact. That is the whole crux of the issue which you continue to miss completely.
Of course it is an opinion. In fact, it is my opinion that it is an opinion :)
Also, I think you may be defining opinion different than almost everyone else, myself included.
The generally accepted definition is that opinions are beliefs or judgements about observable reality.
And yes, such beliefs or judgements can be wrong.
That is, how does one differentiate between 'knowing a thing to be true' and 'believing that a thing is true'.
In my opinion, when there's mist or very light droplets falling from the sky, it's not raining. It's raining when I need to wear a rain jacket to go from my house to my car. In my opinion, it only rained once this summer, where I live. Also, I'm allergic to nuts, so in my opinion, nuts are awful. These opinions are obviously false from the consensus point of view, but they are still true from my point of view... That's the core of the problem.
That's an opinion on the definition of "rain". Language is inherently subject to opinions, since it's descriptive, not prescriptive. Words mean what you want them to mean. It's through mutual agreement that we get a solid definition. But the definition is solely an opinion of what the word should mean. The fact of the matter is that there's mist or very light droplets falling from the sky. Your opinion is that you don't call that rain. That doesn't mean there isn't water falling from the sky. Your opinion is that nuts are 'bad' (a subjective opinion term) because you are allergic (a fact). This is an informed opinion. You don't like X because Y. Nuts are not objectively bad. Not everyone is allergic. That's called a subjective claim/assertion. Or a 'value judgement'. Ultimately it can only be verified from a subjective point of view, meaning that contradictory results are expected. They don't describe objective reality. They describe a subjective view of objective reality. They cannot be right or wrong, given that they are subjective.In my opinion, when there's mist or very light droplets falling from the sky, it's not raining. It's raining when I need to wear a rain jacket to go from my house to my car. In my opinion, it only rained once this summer, where I live.
Also, I'm allergic to nuts, so in my opinion, nuts are awful.
These opinions are obviously false from the consensus point of view, but they are still true from my point of view... That's the core of the problem.
A bit of summarization, a bit of refutation. See: And ultimately, the title: However, the title seems to have changed since I last read it, as it's now: So perhaps some other users have mentioned the same thing.and the word I’ve come to loath more than any other is “opinion”.
There’s a common conception that an opinion cannot be wrong.
"This is my opinion" does not preclude a connected statement from being dead wrong. It still baffles me that some feel those four words somehow give them carte blanche to spout batshit oratory or prose.
Yes, Your Opinion Can Be Wrong
NO, IT’S NOT YOUR OPINION. YOU’RE JUST WRONG
Welcome to the internet where everyone is an expert on everything and they've found a meatheaded cadre of people who will back up their argument based on instinct and emotion! It's the communication medium with the most squandered potential ever based on its ability to reach the most people and people's desire to reach out to those who agree with them. I come from a fine art background where consensus opinion is the historical narrative and can only be understood by having a really intense and weird hobby or spending $80,000 American on a BFA or art history degree. I don't even care anymore. "Yeah, your kid could paint a Jackson Pollack. Watercolors of beaches and flowers are on the same level subjectively." ...rolls eyes when no one's looking and thinks about the joyless high school teachers who put me off science...
My favorite high school teacher taught biology in The South. This was in a state that had one of those teach the controversy requirements with respect to evolution and the age of the earth and such. Whenever she would get to one of the places where she was required to speak bullshit she'd say "and now the state says I have to tell you a fairy tale, so if you want to go wander the halls for the rest of class you have my permission." When kids raised their hands to tell her science was just, like, her opinion man she'd hum Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious to herself until they were done and then carry on like nothing had happened. A lot of my classmates became biologists or doctors. Her first semester was the semester I had her, and she quit to go teach at a little liberal arts college the year after I graduated, because the job was grinding her down.
This is how you get joyless high school teachers who put you off science....rolls eyes when no one's looking and thinks about the joyless high school teachers who put me off science...
You do get that vibe from most public school teachers. Like "You used to care, didn't you?" but that's only evident later to reflective adults. My tenth grade class was really good at making my chemistry teacher cry.because the job was grinding her down.
Well, it's a largely thankless profession, you teach the same things year after year, and probably see kids struggle and fail more often than you'd like...every now and then a prodigy will wander through your class, but even then there's they'll give themselves credit for learning so well instead of respecting you for how well you teach. I wanted to be a teacher for a long time until I actually talked to my debate coach. I became very close with him, and I knew he was being brutally honest when he told me that, although he enjoys teaching, it becomes tedious after so long. We all know how awesome it is to have the the young and enthusiastic teacher, but as stricter and stricter rules are laid down from politicians who want to make education a political rallying point, parents and students continue to be batshit insane, and you still don't get the salary you deserve? The young, enthusiastic teacher turns into the crabby curmudgeon who couldn't be arsed to care about another generation of students that they're starting to understand less and less.
When I hear someone advocating cutting education spending in the US citing the fact that spending on educators is the top cost, I just feel like the whole point is being missed. The highest cost at most companies is their employees - and it should be, if you want to attract high quality employees. Some people have chosen to conflate their grudge against a few of their primary school teachers with making our education system better, and it's been extraordinarily popular, with little gain in anything measurable. We do need accountability in education. But we also need to spend on it like it's a national defense priority. My wife is a teacher, and I didn't realize until she started watching how much of the classroom comes out of the teacher's pocket. And the tax credit that teachers get (and almost lost) is such a laughably low amount.
Of course people are perfectly capable of being wrong about something and saying it's their opinion doesn't change that. However, it's often difficult to tell what the truth of a situation is. You may think someone else is wrong when they're not. Therefore any given person telling you that you're wrong isn't necessarily an indicator that you're wrong or that they have better sources than you. Even if you are right, that doesn't necessarily mean you're convincing. Even if you're convincing that doesn't necessarily mean that you've presented a justifiable argument. Even if you've presented a convincing and justifiable argument they may disagree with you. Not everyone is convinced by the same arguments, and sometimes even an argument that seems convincing can be defeated by a more strongly held sense of knowing the truth, whatever that's derived from. There are a couple other things around this concept that I think are also important to address, because they come up a lot. Not agreeing with someone once you've heard their argument is not the same as not understanding that argument. I'd say that we'd be almost universally better off attempting to determine why it is we disagree than simply insisting that our perspective is true and trying to prove this. Otherwise, how will we ever know if the other person has a piece of the puzzle that we're missing? Unless we're so arrogant as to assume that we know everything, in which case we most assuredly know nothing of significant value, we shouldn't jump to the assumption that disagreement means the other person is wrong, we should use it to investigate the accuracy of our own perspectives. Sometimes we're clearly right (though bias can seem quite clear), in which case the best we can do is offer a learning opportunity. This is unlikely to be achieved without being willing to understand the perspective of the person who is lacking or rejecting information. It certainly won't be done by waving away their perspective as if it didn't exist. None of us are the arbiters of truth, but none of us are the arbiters of truth.
I don't really think this is about the edge cases, though. This is about the people that respond to the geological record with "Well, that's just your opinion." It's a thought-stopping technique, a way of not thinking about evidence that might contradict an unfounded belief/opinion. I definitely agree there's subtlety and nuance to the word and the idea of subjective opinion in proper use - but the article is about whacking people who aren't using it properly to begin with, and not being inappropriately courteous in letting those moments pass unremarked.
Sure, but in the process of that we have to make sure we're not simply assuming we're right where we're not. What someone's really saying when they say "that's your opinion" or "that's my opinion" is that they don't consider your argument compelling and aren't interested in continuing the argument. You're right that it's a conversation ender, but people have a right to end conversations. Maybe to you that conversation sounds like you trying to explain that 2+2=4, but to them it sounds like you won't shut up about 9/11 being an inside job. Perspectives aren't absolute even if truth is. We should try to remember that and draw humility from it.
Oh, I hang in a state of constant oscillation between arrogance and self-doubt. But in general, I prefer to be correct and let "right" sort itself out. But yes, I do get exceptionally annoyed with people who go on and on about things like ... well, 9/11 being an inside job. I consider that one of a range of possibilities - it's clear people had to conspire to make what happened happened - I don't feel that we can be sure about this. It's kind of like people who talk about UFO's coming from Venus. "When you are unclear about what UFO means, we don't really need to talk about your grasp of the habitability of Venus, do we?" "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"; "assertions made without evidence may be dismissed without proof." There's a considerable number of tools to filter out the bullshit you don't need to deal with. Not wanting to deal with the remainder, though - well, you may have every right to not deal with it - but not dealing it is rarely the most productive course.
I've always found this to be an overwhelming cause of these issues. Dunning–Kruger effect strikes again. However, more importantly, I've never found a way to get people out of this situation. How do you encourage humility of knowledge? It seems like a combination of early education emphasizing humility and uncertainty, diverse experiences growing-up, and extensive study in at least a couple of areas to demonstrate the limits of ones own knowledge in a given field. As this article's opening quote points out, simply going to college isn't necessarily going to help.What mucks it all up when a narrow set of information is assumed to be wider than it is. There is a difference between a belief and things you just didn’t know.
I think the best way to foster humility of knowledge, as you call it, is to create an environment where things must have sufficient evidence before they're presented as fact. For instance, lots of math curriculum simply tell kids the pythagorian theorem without ever making an attempt to prove it. Imagine how different history class would be if, instead of reading out of a textbook in 5th grade and accepting everything in them as fact, we were given a collection of primary and secondary sources and were told to come up with our own ideas? Sure, it would be ridiculous to expect little elementary or middle school kids to be able to do that, and I am no educator. But I think if we tried to foster that attitude from the very start, where everything has to have evidence backing it, people would be more receptive to new knowledge and would base their beliefs upon reason more often.
I like math. I haven't had many good teachers but my 7th grade teacher (or 8th, I don't remember) taught the Pythagorean theorem with m&m's. The bases were 3cm and 4cm, the hyp was 5cm. She had us draw the right triangle and then do squares on each side. Filled the 9 and 16 squares with m&m's and then put them in the 25 square. Easy, visual, and I still remember it. This is how teaching should be done.
What is a good way to engage with people who value their feelings over facts? Facts can even harden some people against a given topic (e.g. anti-vaxxers). How can you reason with someone whose opinion is unreasonable?
What a fascinating way of looking at the world! More sweet tea?
I prefer Harlan Ellison's formulation: “You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.”
It's kind of weird, the transition between two ways of phrasing: "It's merely my opinion" "My opinion is..." Language can be strange sometimes. Even stranger when mixed with socioeconomics and mass psychology phenomena.Used in rational discourse with another, to make it clear you are not stating it as absolute truth, a more polite way to handle potential conflict, a healthy way to trade ideas
I believe it, it's right, if you disagree, you're wrong
Opinions can't be wrong, but opinions can be shitty.
Hmmm, it depends on your definition of "wrong." Undesirable, immoral, dishonest opinions wouldn't be wrong in the sense of being factually incorrect but wrong in the sense of being morally objectable. I suppose I could've rephrased my sentence as "opinions can't be factually incorrect, but opinions can be shitty," but it becomes a stupid trite statement that's only slightly better than "opinions can't be facts, but some opinions can be bad opinions." But then again, I don't think the fact/opinion dichotomy accurately represents how statements can be categorized.
Not really. Opinions describe completely separate things than facts. Every opinion is undesirable to someone. That's what makes them opinions. Morality itself is an opinion. What is moral to one is immoral to another. That's an opinion. No. You can be dishonest about what your opinion is. But opinions cannot be dishonest. Opinions cannot be objectively wrong. They aren't objective statements.Opinions can conflict with fact.
Opinions can be undesirable.
Opinions can be immoral.
Opinions can be dishonest.
All these things make the opinions wrong.
I don't believe rightness applies to opinions. I agree with you on that they can be sickly formed, but it doesn't make them incorrect in any way, because they're a piece of subjective perception of reality, just like a fact is a piece of objective perception of reality. Here, let me do a run for it so you'd understand what I mean: "I believe the Earth is spherical rather than flat". "I believe people ought to be treated equally, no matter the color of skin" to a racist's face. Opinions are amoral, intent can be immoral. Believing in solving overpopulation through killing off people bears no morality on its own, but the intent behind it is immoral. This, of course, raises the question of whether opinions and intents behind them are separate. Expressions (words, phrases, sentences) can be dishonest; opinions in themselves bear no property of honesty or lack thereof. Again, a question is raised - whether expressing opinions is separate from expressing any other personal thought - but that's beyond my point.Opinions can conflict with fact.
Opinions can be undesirable.
Opinions can be immoral.
Opinions can be dishonest.
Opinions can be moral. Someone who holds racist opinions will act immorally towards those groups they are racist against. The opinion itself is the source of the behavior, and so long as someone holds a racist opinion, they will act in an immoral (racist) manner. The opinion is therefore also immoral; it's not moral to continue to hold an opinion which influences your actions towards immorality.