Posted by bad_luck on 7/13/2018 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Parsing the meaning of opinion and distinguishing opinions from judgments from facts from truths from matters of taste is a deep philosophical well that I doubt any of us are equipped to properly dive into.

For example, if the one and only acceptable definition of opinion is a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty, and I say, "raw onions are disgusting," that isn't an opinion. I've eaten raw onions and I have grounds sufficient to be completely certain that they are disgusting. You may think the exact opposite and neither of us are wrong and neither of us are expressing an opinion.

Another example: Mike Trout is a better offensive player than Alcides Escobar. That isn't an opinion either. I have sufficient grounds to say that with certainty.

But, I'm not a car mechanic. If my car is acting up and I say, "I think it needs new spark plugs," that is an opinion. I do not have sufficient grounds to produce complete certainty that the plugs are the problem. And it's an opinion that could be wrong.

I'll just post this again along with the definition wylie copied from the dictionary: a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

The fact that person A lacks grounds to produce complete certainty doesn't mean those grounds don't exist, making the opinion wrong.

Going back to a car as an example. If I hear a noise coming from the engine, I might form the opinion that there's a knock in one of the cylinders. That's an opinion. I don't have grounds to produce certainty. If the noise is actually an exhaust leak, my opinion is wrong. It was wrong the moment I formed it. The fact that I didn't know I was wrong doesn't change the fact that my opinion was always wrong.

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/13/2018 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by wylie715 on 7/13/2018 1:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by all3 on 7/13/2018 10:12:00 AM (view original):
wylie obviously posts here for no reason other than to try to be a pain in the *ss. He's really no different than Bracco - never really even trying to contribute anything other than chaos and/or annoyance. Probably time to treat him like the troll he has become.

all3, you have said some not very nice things about me, but comparing me to Bracco is going too far! I demand an apology!!!

You and Bracco do share the same political views to be fair.

No, we don't. He is much more left leaning than I am.

Posted by laramiebob on 7/13/2018 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/13/2018 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by laramiebob on 7/13/2018 1:14:00 PM (view original):
I think I get all these opinions about the meaning of an opinion.............after all, we've been around this loop before here..........

Except for one.
Some claim an "opinion" can't be wrong.......... I think that claim is based on the fact that it's just an opinion thus it "can't be wrong".......

Someone who believes that way please explain to dumb old me............how were the humans who believed the Earth was flat NOT wrong?
They were obviously wrong, no? The Earth is not flat. That's fact. Thus the "opinion" held by so many humans at the time was incorrect. WRONG.

Seems to dumb old me that their shared opinions on the Earth's flatness was WRONG. A wrong opinion.

Can somebody help me?
Should be easier than getting me to support Repugnants from the "right".............

Until you have proof it is an opinion. Once you garner proof it’s a fact. If my opinion in 2001 was Tom Brady was the steal of the draft it’s just that. After seeing his career we can agree that the opinion became a fact.

If I argue that Tom Brady was the most handsome player drafted in 2001, it is just an opinion because that is really subjective.

Thx for trying Boris. But that ain't helpful. Sure it's an opinion BEFORE facts come to light and disprove the opinion......... but after the "proof" is revealed (thru the facts appearance) then that opinion is /was WRONG. Thus an opinion can damn sure be wrong......... no?

No. Once it has been proven wrong, it is no longer an opinion.

Again, when you form an opinion and it turns out you were wrong, the opinion was wrong from the start.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/13/2018 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/13/2018 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Parsing the meaning of opinion and distinguishing opinions from judgments from facts from truths from matters of taste is a deep philosophical well that I doubt any of us are equipped to properly dive into.

For example, if the one and only acceptable definition of opinion is a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty, and I say, "raw onions are disgusting," that isn't an opinion. I've eaten raw onions and I have grounds sufficient to be completely certain that they are disgusting. You may think the exact opposite and neither of us are wrong and neither of us are expressing an opinion.

Another example: Mike Trout is a better offensive player than Alcides Escobar. That isn't an opinion either. I have sufficient grounds to say that with certainty.

But, I'm not a car mechanic. If my car is acting up and I say, "I think it needs new spark plugs," that is an opinion. I do not have sufficient grounds to produce complete certainty that the plugs are the problem. And it's an opinion that could be wrong.

I'll just post this again along with the definition wylie copied from the dictionary: a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

The fact that person A lacks grounds to produce complete certainty doesn't mean those grounds don't exist, making the opinion wrong.

Going back to a car as an example. If I hear a noise coming from the engine, I might form the opinion that there's a knock in one of the cylinders. That's an opinion. I don't have grounds to produce certainty. If the noise is actually an exhaust leak, my opinion is wrong. It was wrong the moment I formed it. The fact that I didn't know I was wrong doesn't change the fact that my opinion was always wrong.

I don't think I care to argue about this any more after this. Yes, you can say that Trout is a better offensive player than Escobar. That is not an opinion, it is a fact. Anyone who were to tell you different is an idiot or does not know anything about baseball. If you were to say that Trout is the best offensive player in the game, that is an opinion. It all depends on your definition of best and your definition of offensive player.
As far as the raw onions being disgusting thing, if you say raw onions are disgusting to me, that is not an opinion. You are just talking about specifically how you feel about raw onions. It is a fact that raw onions are disgusting to you. Unless, you specifically say that raw onions are disgusting to you, its just an opinion, because obviously you can not prove or disprove that everybody feels that way about raw onions.

But anyway, I say opinions can not be wrong. You can say whatever you want. I am not gonna argue it anymore. I'm sure that will make all3 happy.

OK, last comment on this. Someone who does not know anything about baseball would have "grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty" regarding a Trout/Escobar comparison. So if they did conclude the Escobar is better, it would be an opinion. And it would be wrong.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/13/2018 2:34:00 PM (view original):
OK, last comment on this. Someone who does not know anything about baseball would have "grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty" regarding a Trout/Escobar comparison. So if they did conclude the Escobar is better, it would be an opinion. And it would be wrong.

No, Alexander. Because there are stats that show Trout is better. If my opinion is that the Earth is larger than the Sun then it’s not an opinIon but a false statement. If an opinion can be disproven by facts it is no longer an opinion but a false statement instead.

Nice try though.

Posted by bad_luck on 7/13/2018 2:24:00 PM (view original):
Again, when you form an opinion and it turns out you were wrong, the opinion was wrong from the start.

What part of an opinion cannot be wrong do you not understand?

Posted by wylie715 on 7/13/2018 2:16:00 PM (view original):

Posted by laramiebob on 7/13/2018 1:26:00 PM (view original):

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/13/2018 1:17:00 PM (view original):

Posted by laramiebob on 7/13/2018 1:14:00 PM (view original):
I think I get all these opinions about the meaning of an opinion.............after all, we've been around this loop before here..........

Except for one.
Some claim an "opinion" can't be wrong.......... I think that claim is based on the fact that it's just an opinion thus it "can't be wrong".......

Someone who believes that way please explain to dumb old me............how were the humans who believed the Earth was flat NOT wrong?
They were obviously wrong, no? The Earth is not flat. That's fact. Thus the "opinion" held by so many humans at the time was incorrect. WRONG.

Seems to dumb old me that their shared opinions on the Earth's flatness was WRONG. A wrong opinion.

Can somebody help me?
Should be easier than getting me to support Repugnants from the "right".............

Until you have proof it is an opinion. Once you garner proof it’s a fact. If my opinion in 2001 was Tom Brady was the steal of the draft it’s just that. After seeing his career we can agree that the opinion became a fact.

If I argue that Tom Brady was the most handsome player drafted in 2001, it is just an opinion because that is really subjective.

Thx for trying Boris. But that ain't helpful. Sure it's an opinion BEFORE facts come to light and disprove the opinion......... but after the "proof" is revealed (thru the facts appearance) then that opinion is /was WRONG. Thus an opinion can damn sure be wrong......... no?

No. Once it has been proven wrong, it is no longer an opinion.

Well yeah, but that ignores the jerk who wouldn't believe the "new" science and continued to hold fast to his opinion that the Earth is flat............
His "opinion" on the Earth's shape is wrong......... and dumb.

Here's another question (about horses, kinda)

How many combustible engines do y'all estimate there was on this globe 600 years ago?
Hazard a guess?

Yeah that dude was just wrong his opinion was actually a false statement and idk.

Posted by cccp1014 on 7/13/2018 10:14:00 AM (view original):

Posted by strikeout26 on 7/13/2018 6:51:00 AM (view original):
It I was my opinion that y'all have too much time on your hands. When do you guys ever work?

I am on vacation

You need better vacations if you're posting here while on it.

I'm with Taint on that one

Posted by bad_luck on 7/13/2018 1:43:00 PM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 7/13/2018 12:41:00 PM (view original):
Parsing the meaning of opinion and distinguishing opinions from judgments from facts from truths from matters of taste is a deep philosophical well that I doubt any of us are equipped to properly dive into.

For example, if the one and only acceptable definition of opinion is a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty, and I say, "raw onions are disgusting," that isn't an opinion. I've eaten raw onions and I have grounds sufficient to be completely certain that they are disgusting. You may think the exact opposite and neither of us are wrong and neither of us are expressing an opinion.

Another example: Mike Trout is a better offensive player than Alcides Escobar. That isn't an opinion either. I have sufficient grounds to say that with certainty.

But, I'm not a car mechanic. If my car is acting up and I say, "I think it needs new spark plugs," that is an opinion. I do not have sufficient grounds to produce complete certainty that the plugs are the problem. And it's an opinion that could be wrong.

I'll just post this again along with the definition wylie copied from the dictionary: a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.

The fact that person A lacks grounds to produce complete certainty doesn't mean those grounds don't exist, making the opinion wrong.

Going back to a car as an example. If I hear a noise coming from the engine, I might form the opinion that there's a knock in one of the cylinders. That's an opinion. I don't have grounds to produce certainty. If the noise is actually an exhaust leak, my opinion is wrong. It was wrong the moment I formed it. The fact that I didn't know I was wrong doesn't change the fact that my opinion was always wrong.

CCCP, was I wrong when I formed the opinion that the issue was an engine knock?

Posted by laramiebob on 7/13/2018 3:00:00 PM (view original):
I'm with Taint on that one

I am at the pool and constantly replying to work emails.

All this talk about Alcides Escobar is giving me PTSD.