The Great Opinion Thread [Lightningdome?!]

[Quindiana Jones]

Any opinions that disagree with a priori facts are wrong. An a priori fact is something that is true in itself. Using the current laws of language and mathematics, "a square has four sides" is fact. "In my opinion, a square has 3 sides" is simply wrong.

However, opinions can also be morally wrong, though this is much more difficult to gauge due to (in my opinion - ho ho ho) there being no objective moral values. However, society determines morality, so if your opinion that killing babies is hella fun and should be done at all available times goes against the collective morality of society, then it could be said that your opinion is wrong morally.

[Tavrobel]

Alright, I'm going to get this out of the way now. Colors are determined by certain frequencies' or whatever the term is, of light and what not. The color red appears for a certain frequency. Now, I may very well have my terms mixed up, but it is in fact scientifically possible to prove that the sky is in fact, not red.

Wavelength. Frequency is a value related to wavelength, but if you have one, you usually have the other.

[Raistlin]

Yeah, colors can be objectively determined by measuring the wavelength of light that is reflected by the object.

"This band is bad" vs. "This band is not bad"

This works the same way. Both of these opinions can't be not wrong. One of them has to be wrong.

Um... I would agree if it's the same person saying that, but if it's two different people, then they can have two definitions of "bad," neither of which can demonstrably "wrong" by an objective standard.

[NeoCracker]

Alright, I'm going to get this out of the way now. Colors are determined by certain frequencies' or whatever the term is, of light and what not. The color red appears for a certain frequency. Now, I may very well have my terms mixed up, but it is in fact scientifically possible to prove that the sky is in fact, not red.

Wavelength. Frequency is a value related to wavelength, but if you have one, you usually have the other.

Ah, thank you. I figured I screwed that up at some point.

[PuPu]

Um... I would agree if it's the same person saying that, but if it's two different people, then they can have two definitions of "bad," neither of which can demonstrably "wrong" by an objective standard.

I suppose you are right about that, because nothing can be objectively proven as good/bad/(subjective term).

In a case like this, it becomes a matter of which opinion is more valid and supported. Not all opinions are equal or valid either.

[Raistlin]

In a case like this, it becomes a matter of which opinion is more valid and supported. Not all opinions are equal or valid either.

That is true, but something as individual as what sounds are more pleasing to a given person's brain is not something that any other person can determine or argue against; there is no objective standard to judge it, it is individual to that person's ears and brain. It'd be like arguing against what foods someone said they like; you don't have that person's taste buds, so there is no standard for you to dispute their statement.

[Jessweeee♪]

A stated fact can be proven as either true or false, an opinion can not.

"The sky is red."
This is something you incorrectly believe to be a fact, not your opinion. It's night. There is not a single speck of red in the sky. If you seriously believe it's red there is something wrong with you.

"I think/In my opinion the sky is red."
This is a true fact. The person who said this does indeed believe the sky is red. (Though if you want to be a smart ass you can argue that only the person who the thought belongs to can prove this). If it were sunset, there may be a little room for debate.

"Advent Children is a really good movie."
Well that just depends on your own definition of a good movie. To some people, a good movie just has to do it's job: keep your mind occupied. Others need additional requirements met before they can call it a good movie. So this is just an opinion that can't be right or wrong. Even if you do not understand the definition of the word "opinion" or "fact."

[Moon Rabbits]

Alright, I'm going to get this out of the way now. Colors are determined by certain frequencies' or whatever the term is, of light and what not. The color red appears for a certain frequency. Now, I may very well have my terms mixed up, but it is in fact scientifically possible to prove that the sky is in fact, not red.

This is meta yo. Sure it can be scientifically proven that red = red because red light has so and so wavelength and so and so amplitude, but like rubah said, this could all just be a misfiring synapse and no one really exists Who is to say that red light is actually what you perceive as red? What if all colour blind people are actually right or something > _ > Again, like rubah said, there is no way to discern if our senses are actually relaying information to our brains properly or if our brains are even processing that information properly.

So like, I'm of the opinion (lolzzz) that blah blah no opinion is wrong because opinions are observations and everyone's subjective realities are different, etc. etc. BUT, I think that within the actual context of (my) existence, opinions can be wrong. When I say "murder is wrong" most people take that to be true. Obviously, some one could just as easily say "murder is not wrong," despite this being untrue when based in a logical society.

[Tavrobel]

Goddamnit, stop using light as an example. Sure you can have a misfiring synapse somewhere, but light has been very specifically defined. Even if you don't see it as being red, it is still red, by the definition. If you couldn't see the red, it would be infrared, which is outside of our perceptual faculties. You can see green, and it will still be red. Read the goddamn definition. 500-700 nm from trough to trough.

If you're going to rage on about higher level physics concepts, use the definition of a kilogram, okay? It's a friggin' block in the middle of France.

[Meat Puppet]

Opinion is such a weird word.

[blackmage_nuke]

Proof everyone in this thread is a nutcase

[Meat Puppet]

I thought it was DOOM II when that was happening. I was actually kind of scared for a moment.

[Jiro]

Also, also, what does it take for some statement to be a "fact"?

Facts are things that are assumed to be true. Facts are not proven 100% to be true, because as our good friend Einstein said; "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong" and there is always the possibility of future technology being able to expose errors.

[rubah]

So, how many people assuming it's true does it take, Jiro? It has be something more than sheer democracy, else we'd never get people convinced of new facts xD

[Raistlin]

A fact is not something "assumed" true - a fact is something which is true. There are objectively true facts; we just have to discover and appreciate them.

There's a difference between something being a fact and something being accepted as fact. The former is an objective statement of reality, whereas the latter is based on our individual perception and understanding of that reality. It's necessary to be consistent with your definitions because people may be discussing different things.

Pure democracy does not determine facts, because only existence does that. However, some form of that principle can help determine what we should accept as true (e.g., evolution being universally accepted among the academic community).