Does the SMF Forum Need A Board for Spam only Discussions/Help?

[Kindred]

ummm...   xrunner - what thread have you been reading?

I presented dictionary definition, philosophical discussion and several other links which proved my definition and reasoning.

Your SOLE argument has been "you are misunderstanding." "You are wrong"  and "you refuse to listen to facts"
Give me some ACTUAL facts, in other words, statements from outside your own brain, which support your position and I'll consider it.

[xrunner]

ummm...   xrunner - what thread have you been reading?

I presented dictionary definition, philosophical discussion and several other links which proved my definition and reasoning.

Your SOLE argument has been "you are misunderstanding." "You are wrong"  and "you refuse to listen to facts"
Give me some ACTUAL facts, in other words, statements from outside your own brain, which support your position and I'll consider it.

I already have. I'm getting ready to report you for trolling me, if this silliness that you say I haven't provided explanations keeps up.

[Arantor]

I already have. I'm getting ready to report you for trolling me, if this silliness that you say I haven't provided explanations keeps up.

He's a moderator

[xrunner]

I already have. I'm getting ready to report you for trolling me, if this silliness that you say I haven't provided explanations keeps up.

He's a moderator

Well he's setting an even worse example then isn't he?

Here Kindred, I'll attempt one more time. Why I don't know ...

An opinion is a state of mind in a human. We all agree with that. It's an entity, if you will, that exists in a human mind. That's why we made a word for it. I have an opinion ...

Let's call that state in the mind, an opinion, the state called {op}.

In order to be valid, the state {op} has to conform to the standard of being, in fact, an opinion of a human being.

If it does that, the state {op} is valid - it's an opinion that's valid as it follows the rules of being a real human opinion - a valid opinion.

If the state {op} is flawed - not in fact an opinion in the mind, then it's invalid as a state {op}. It's some other state.

For example, it might be a lie that something you say is your opinion, or you might not even have an opinion, but yet say to another person that you do have an opinion. Therfore, the state {op} does not meet the criteria for being an opinion. It's an invalid opinion.

All an opinion has to do to be a valid opinion is meet the criteria for an opinion. It neither has to be true or factual as relates to any outside empirical evidence. If it's in your mind, and you are not lying about it being a real opinion - it's a valid opinion - as an opinion and nothing more. <-- That's important.

Definition of state {op}

1. Held by a human being
2. Not a lie
3. Stated to a second party as a truthfully held opinion

If all those are satisfied - the condition {op} is valid - it's a valid opinion.

You are Hell-bent on trying to force definitions on the term "valid opinion" that don't have a ******-god-damn-bit to do with it. I have no idea why you are doing this, other than your idea of retribution against me for calling you out as a condescending staff member. In other words my valid opinion is that you are smart enough to "get it" but act like you don't want to, for the sake of not having to agree with me.

But you are wrong about what a valid opinion is.

Oh yea I forgot, you need to take it up with Runic too, as he agress that everyone's opinion is valid.

[Kindred]

There is no retribution involved.

I feel that it is my duty, as a teacher, to correct misapprehensions of language.

Your presentation is very pretty and nicely laid out.
It is, however, flawed at the very base of your argument
I have already proven (by the very definition of the word, in the dictionary) that the term "Valid" implies that there is some objective truth to the matter.

You have presented {op} as a subjective truth which != objective truth
objective truth requires some outside corroboration. Hence my continuing argument that a valid opinion requires some outside facts to back it up.

Now... I am willing to concede Arantor's point of order - that an opinion could be considered valid barring the absence of any DISproof contradicting the opinion statement.

Finally, as nicely presented as your argument is, it is still from your head.
Find me some outside, corroborating evidence to support your statement and I will conede that you MAY have a point, barring that, I stick to my assertion, as stated, that you are incorrect.

[Arantor]

You have presented {op} as a subjective truth which != objective truth

What is subjective to one is objective to another. Which means you're now needing to define 'truth'. Have fun with that. What is truth to me is not truth to you.

[xrunner]

You have presented {op} as a subjective truth which != objective truth
objective truth requires some outside corroboration.

Then there is no such thing as an opinion, because you cannot prove anyone has any opinions at all.

Do you see where your argument is headed?

[Kindred]

ummm.... no. Now you've gone beyond what I said, thus arguing the absurd.

I agree that people have opinions.

Your contention is that any person's opinion is valid, by your definition of the word "valid" meaning "not a lie" and the assumption that, unless they were purposefully telling a lie, the person's statement of opinion is true in their eyes.

I contend that opinions held by a person may be valid or invalid because the term "valid" relates to objective truth (i.e. the presence of facts supporting (or at the very least, lacks of facts contradicting) that person's opinion)

[Arantor]

Except that's not what you were contending at all. You were actually asserting that most 'opinions' are not valid because of an absence of supporting objective truth. Except that there's virtually no such thing as objective truth outside of mathematics (which is the nearest thing you can get to completely objective truth when you think about it), so by extension virtually no opinion is actually valid.

Simple example: I believe the colour of the sky, on a clear day, during the daytime is blue. Is that an opinion? Is it a valid opinion?

[xrunner]

ummm.... no. Now you've gone beyond what I said, thus arguing the absurd.

I agree that people have opinions.

Great, because otherwise it would have really gone awry.

Your contention is that any person's opinion is valid, by your definition of the word "valid" meaning "not a lie" and the assumption that, unless they were purposefully telling a lie, the person's statement of opinion is true in their eyes.

Yea pretty much. The valid refers to not the truth of the contents of the opinion, but the fact it's an actual true opinion in a mind.

I contend that opinions held by a person may be valid or invalid because the term "valid" relates to objective truth (i.e. the presence of facts supporting (or at the very least, lacks of facts contradicting) that person's opinion)

I wouldn't say it that way, that's where the problem lies.

I would term it more like this -

All opinions are valid opinions (if not lies etc. like I've said), however the truth of the contents of the opinions, i.e. what's in the "container", may or may not be objectively true and factual.

In other words a valid opinion may turn out to have a truth or untruth when examined.

[Kindred]

so, now we reach the heart of the matter and the misunderstanding.

I contend that the subjective sense of the opinion (it's true because I believe it is so) does not matter for validity.
I contend that the objective sense of the opinion (it's true because there is evidence supporting it) is what matters for validity
BTW: That is the contention that all of the other definitions of "valid opinion" that I could find support as well

you contend the opposite


So... it comes down to that... and I don't think either of us is going to budge at this point.

[Arantor]

So, answer my question:

Simple example: I believe the colour of the sky, on a clear day, during the daytime is blue. Is that an opinion? Is it a valid opinion?

[xrunner]

I contend that the subjective sense of the opinion (it's true because I believe it is so) does not matter for validity.

Did you mean me above where it says "I"?

I contend that the objective sense of the opinion (it's true because there is evidence supporting it) is what matters for validity
BTW: That is the contention that all of the other definitions of "valid opinion" that I could find support as well

you contend the opposite

So... it comes down to that... and I don't think either of us is going to budge at this point.

We're not done yet.

Here's a definition of valid opinion that basically fits my arguments -

What is a valid opinion?
Answer:
An opinion is someone's thoughts and feelings on a subject. That opinion is said to be "valid" if there is good reasoning behind it, or if it's understandable that someone would feel that way.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_valid_opinion

Basically that's what I've been saying. If it's understandable that someone would feel that way, it's a valid opinion but that's all. Not whether you or I would feel a certain way, or agree with it, but whether someone else would feel that way. Basically if they aren't lying, and lay out a case for their opinion,  for their feelings, then it's a valid opinion. It's not for us to say the opinion is invalid, but sure, we can examine the claims of the opinion no-holds-barred.

In other words I understand how theists feel the way they do, they have valid opinions, but I don't agree with them.

The container is valid, but the contents aren't.

[Kindred]

no. I meant for both starting statements to be "I"

you say that the container is all the matters. I say that the contents are what matters.

[xrunner]

you say that the container is all the matters. I say that the contents are what matters.

In one sentence, yep.

Trust me, you and I are surely in total agreement as to what constitutes facts, critical thinking, rational thinking, etc.

And surely, I think many people's opinions hold the most ridiculous assertions you can imagine - I seen them all for 6 years.

But ... what's in the container is not the container.

A beautiful vase can hold a gallon of sewage. that doesn't reflect on the vase does it?

And we should not taint the definition of valid opinion with what it contains, which could easily be complete idiocy.

[IchBin™]

[petabyte]

is that a valid opinion?

I am into science, and have had all sorts of opinions presented to me, but the ones that have more credibility it seems (looking at many discussions, research papers etc) are the opinions with some evidence/back up.... maybe the terms 'credible opionion' and 'valid opinion' are getting muddled up?

Flame away!

[xrunner]

 

I am into science, and have had all sorts of opinions presented to me, but the ones that have more credibility it seems (looking at many discussions, research papers etc) are the opinions with some evidence/back up.... maybe the terms 'credible opionion' and 'valid opinion' are getting muddled up?

I'm into science also.

What you are talking about   "the ones that have more credibility it seems (looking at many discussions, research papers etc) are the opinions with some evidence/back up"  is more the hypothesis - theory route of progression, not an opinion.

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis

a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/opinion

Any idiot can have an opinion, and it's valid as such an entity as long as it's consistent with the definition.

Me stating an opinion is a far lower rung on the ladder than a hypothesis, for it does not mean I have any evidence or propose evidence to back it up. People have the most ridiculous opinions you can imagine, but there is no requirement to have scientific evidence for it to state it. I'm merely saying the opinions of people are all valid because they are not misusing the word as applied to the state of mind we call "opinion".

That's all there is to it.

[Arantor]

That's all there is to it.

Unless you're certain people on this site in which case an opinion has to be backed up by objective proof.

[xrunner]

That's all there is to it.

Unless you're certain people on this site in which case an opinion has to be backed up by objective proof.

Here we go again!