Does ''opinion'' mean a subjective conclusion?

[Felix Quill 0]

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

I thought it just meant a conclusion reached by an individual.

And that people meant ''that is only the conclusion you reached'' when said ''that's just your opinion''.

Do they by that word actually mean ''that's just the 'inherently subjective' conclusion you reached''?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

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

I thought it just meant a conclusion reached by an individual.

And that people meant ''that is only the conclusion you reached'' when said ''that's just your opinion''.

Do they by that word actually mean ''that's just the 'inherently subjective' conclusion you reached''?

Yes, when it comes to the opinions of those who do not come to their conclusions rationally. No, for those who base their opinions on facts and logic.

When you hear someone say "That's just your opinion," it almost always means you are dealing with someone who wants to dismiss your conclusion without having to think about or address your facts and reasoning.

[Paul's Here 0]

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

I thought it just meant a conclusion reached by an individual.

And that people meant ''that is only the conclusion you reached'' when said ''that's just your opinion''.

Do they by that word actually mean ''that's just the 'inherently subjective' conclusion you reached''?

Yes, when it comes to the opinions of those who do not come to their conclusions rationally. No, for those who base their opinions on facts and logic.

When you hear someone say "That's just your opinion," it almost always means you are dealing with someone who wants to dismiss your conclusion without having to think about or address your facts and reasoning.

It's a form of ad hominem: the argument is dismissed by attacking the person. That's just your opinion; who are you to judge?

[bborg 0]

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

I thought it just meant a conclusion reached by an individual.

And that people meant ''that is only the conclusion you reached'' when said ''that's just your opinion''.

Do they by that word actually mean ''that's just the 'inherently subjective' conclusion you reached''?

Of particular interest is where the article says that “opinions can be persuasive, but only the facts they are based on can be said to be true or false” and where it references a distinction between opinion and “knowledge”. Although they say that an opinion is “normally” subjective, clearly they mean that it is always subjective, since it cannot be true or false and is not knowledge of reality. In other words they are saying that an opinion is just a floating piece of arbitrariness that, although it can be the subject of heated debate, is of no consequence when dealing with reality. This is concrete-bound nonsense and testament to the fact that the creator of Wikipedia, a self-described “Objectivist”, lacks an actual understanding of the philosophy.

Incidentally, how, if opinions are neither true nor false, can they be persuasive? What is it that the author of this claptrap thinks opinions are persuading people of?

[Felix Quill 0]

Yes, when it comes to the opinions of those who do not come to their conclusions rationally. No, for those who base their opinions on facts and logic.

When you hear someone say "That's just your opinion," it almost always means you are dealing with someone who wants to dismiss your conclusion without having to think about or address your facts and reasoning.

Thanks.

This part also puzzled me somewhat but maybe its in word choice.

An opinion is a belief that may or may not be backed up with evidence, but which cannot be proved with that evidence. An opinion is neither right nor wrong.

Does it mean to say that the facts leading to someone's opinion cant be used to proof that someone holds that opinion?

[Felix Quill 0]

Of particular interest is where the article says that "opinions can be persuasive, but only the facts they are based on can be said to be true or false" and where it references a distinction between opinion and "knowledge". Although they say that an opinion is "normally" subjective, clearly they mean that it is always subjective, since it cannot be true or false and is not knowledge of reality. In other words they are saying that an opinion is just a floating piece of arbitrariness that, although it can be the subject of heated debate, is of no consequence when dealing with reality. This is concrete-bound nonsense and testament to the fact that the creator of Wikipedia, a self-described "Objectivist", lacks an actual understanding of the philosophy.

Another person to be thanked. Thanks!

This cleared up a few things for me.

Incidentally, how, if opinions are neither true nor false, can they be persuasive? What is it that the author of this claptrap thinks opinions are persuading people of?

Very apt.

[Paul's Here 0]

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

I thought it just meant a conclusion reached by an individual.

And that people meant ''that is only the conclusion you reached'' when said ''that's just your opinion''.

Do they by that word actually mean ''that's just the 'inherently subjective' conclusion you reached''?

Of particular interest is where the article says that “opinions can be persuasive, but only the facts they are based on can be said to be true or false” and where it references a distinction between opinion and “knowledge”. Although they say that an opinion is “normally” subjective, clearly they mean that it is always subjective, since it cannot be true or false and is not knowledge of reality. In other words they are saying that an opinion is just a floating piece of arbitrariness that, although it can be the subject of heated debate, is of no consequence when dealing with reality. This is concrete-bound nonsense and testament to the fact that the creator of Wikipedia, a self-described “Objectivist”, lacks an actual understanding of the philosophy.

Incidentally, how, if opinions are neither true nor false, can they be persuasive? What is it that the author of this claptrap thinks opinions are persuading people of?

This also goes to show you how screwed up the author the article is. How can facts be true or false, but not the opinion? A fact either exists or it doesn't. Truth refers to the correspondence between our thoughts and facts. What is a false fact? An assertion that something is a fact can be true or false.

[Mindy Newton 0]

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

I thought it just meant a conclusion reached by an individual.

And that people meant ''that is only the conclusion you reached'' when said ''that's just your opinion''.

Do they by that word actually mean ''that's just the 'inherently subjective' conclusion you reached''?

Of particular interest is where the article says that “opinions can be persuasive, but only the facts they are based on can be said to be true or false” and where it references a distinction between opinion and “knowledge”. Although they say that an opinion is “normally” subjective, clearly they mean that it is always subjective, since it cannot be true or false and is not knowledge of reality. In other words they are saying that an opinion is just a floating piece of arbitrariness that, although it can be the subject of heated debate, is of no consequence when dealing with reality. This is concrete-bound nonsense and testament to the fact that the creator of Wikipedia, a self-described “Objectivist”, lacks an actual understanding of the philosophy.

Incidentally, how, if opinions are neither true nor false, can they be persuasive? What is it that the author of this claptrap thinks opinions are persuading people of?

This also goes to show you how screwed up the author the article is. How can facts be true or false, but not the opinion? A fact either exists or it doesn't. Truth refers to the correspondence between our thoughts and facts. What is a false fact? An assertion that something is a fact can be true or false.

It might help to consider why we call an opinion an opinion.

We describe our beliefs and conclusions, etc. with several different terms. We describe some ideas as beliefs, others as knowledge, opinion, judgment, suspicions, etc. In all such cases, we are recognizing the relationship of that idea to its evidentiary bases. "Opinions" are ideas we are somewhat unsure of. But that uncertainty doesn't have anything at all to do with subjectivity.

Second idea here: All ideation is the ideation of some subject, some mind or another. That sense of "subjective" is the ontological one. The epistemological sense of "subjective" simply means that the content of the idea does not derive from the subject-matter it names. A subjective opinion about a restaurant might be based on how long you had to wait to be seated, or the rudeness of the waiter, though it is stated as how good the food was. So, just to be clear, if someone asks Joan how the food is at Mirabella on 2nd Avenue, and she answers it is only so-so, but she actually enjoyed the food a lot, but she was also annoyed at having to wait and at the rudeness of the waiter, but she doesn't sort out her feelings, she has made a subjective judgment. The judgment is not, actually, about how the food was. Her dislike was reasonable, but it was mis-attributed. That subjectivity represents a degree of carelessness, and sometimes it amounts to a lot worse.

[JeffT 0]

This is concrete-bound nonsense and testament to the fact that the creator of Wikipedia, a self-described “Objectivist”, lacks an actual understanding of the philosophy.

How does it have anything to do with Jimmy Wales' understanding of Objectivism? Wikipedia does not claim to represent Objectivism, nor that Objectivism is the viewpoint of the articles or the standard by which articles should be edited, and administrators and those higher rarely intervene in article disputes.

[bborg 0]

How does it have anything to do with Jimmy Wales' understanding of Objectivism? Wikipedia does not claim to represent Objectivism, nor that Objectivism is the viewpoint of the articles or the standard by which articles should be edited, and administrators and those higher rarely intervene in article disputes.

It's an encyclopedia, of course I don't expect it to represent Objectivism. What I think is disgraceful is that its creator, an alleged Objectivist, has chosen to adopt our enemy's standard of truth.

[JeffT 0]

It's an encyclopedia, of course I don't expect it to represent Objectivism. What I think is disgraceful is that its creator, an alleged Objectivist, has chosen to adopt our enemy's standard of truth.

Is this based on information in the Opinion article, or elsewhere? It looked like this was being inferred from the Opinion article. I'm not disputing (or agreeing necessarily) if you're basing it on other sources.

[bborg 0]

Is this based on information in the Opinion article, or elsewhere? It looked like this was being inferred from the Opinion article. I'm not disputing (or agreeing necessarily) if you're basing it on other sources.

The Opinion article is consistent with the "neutral point of view", the "cornerstone of Wikipedia". This is the main criteria for the creation and maintenance of articles. Note especially the section on bias:

Bias

Neutrality requires views to be represented without bias. All editors and all sources have biases (in other words, all editors and all sources have a point of view) — what matters is how we combine them to create a neutral article. Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence. Editorial bias toward one particular point of view should be fixed