Today’s discussion: opinions. This is mostly fuelled by a recent entry by someone who had a rather strong opinion about, well, opinions. I not going to directly quote from what was said because the entry was taken down, and I assume that’s because the author didn’t want the public to read it. While my comment on said entry consequently is no longer accessible either, it certainly got me thinking about the whole topic. Here be my thoughts!

I have seen on more than one occasion, people have expressed the belief that opinions cannot be right or wrong, and as some have said, there are only favourable/unfavourable opinions. This is mostly based on the idea that because opinions are beliefs and judgements of something uncertain (paraphrased from dictionary.com’s definition), then opinions cannot be right or wrong. Another way to look at it is that many believe that opinions are purely subjective, therefore they are immune to judgement about their correctness. However, this is an incomplete and superficial conclusion as to what opinions are. There are subjective opinions and there are opinions that are based on objective premises.

Subjective Opinions
Subjective opinions usually refer to one’s own cognitions. For example consider the statement,

“I like fish”.

This cannot be “wrong” because the truth of it comes from yourself, i.e. it would be nonsensical for someone to retort with, “no, you DON’T like fish” because they are not you, and hence not the source of the claim. Other examples could be like, “I feel hungry” or “I hate the rain”. These statements can only be false when the person speaking is lying about the internal state they’re experiencing.

Objective Opinions
Of relevance, objective opinions distinctly have two elements. There is the,
1) The “I believe…” or “I think…” part (which may be expressed or implied), and
2) The actual claim.

For example,

“I think Asperger Syndrome is a fake condition”

This is an opinion about some aspect of the world, and I argue that it can be said to be right or wrong. However, I must stress that the rightness or wrongness has NOTHING to do with that first aspect, the “I think” part. To say the opinion is wrong is not to say “I don’t think that you actually think Asperger’s is a fake condition”, or that it’s not true that you hold that opinion. Saying an opinion is wrong is not to say that you’re not entitled to voice the opinion or that you don’t hold the opinion. Rightness or wrongness refers to the actual claim you’re making.

Of course there are some topics out there that are debatable and are not settled facts. I have heard people opine that Asperger’s is not real, however, just because it’s their opinion, it doesn’t mean such opinions exist in an untouchable void. The existence of Asperger’s is supported by a large body of empirical research, and to contradict the conclusions of such research with no legitimate evidence is to make a claim that is (for all intents and purposes) incorrect, or “wrong”. Such a claim does not stop being incorrect by virtue of being someone’s expressed opinion. It is different when you have an opinion about the world that is backed up with reason or evidence. Then you have an argument, and when confronted with a different view, then perhaps discourse on the subject matter can ensue.

It surprises me whenever people express their opinions about something, and when someone asks them why or presents alternative explanations or some such, the first person gets all huffy and says something along the lines of “well that’s my opinion!”. Okay, so what? If you’re making claims about the world, and if you don’t have a good enough reason to back it up compared to a different claim, then why are you even defending it? Why are people so defensive and get so personal when their objective opinions are demonstrably based on something that is not correct? No one is trying to remove one’s right to an opinion just because they’re based on a less correct premise. You have the right to be wrong, but everyone else retains the right to tell you so.

It’s not always possible to get a “right” opinion when compared to its alternative, because the foundation of the opinions might be different. A Christian who might say “premarital sex is immoral” has a valid opinion, because it follows logically from their belief that there is a God who mandates that premarital sex is immoral. Someone who doesn’t believe in a God in the first place would also come to an equally valid opinion that premarital sex is not immoral. There’s no right and wrong to these two opinions because they work on different premises. However, at least through discussion people can work out what different premises they’re working with, if they have established that both opinions make sense.

Hence, opinions about the world are not immune to objective scrutiny. They can be engaged with like any argument or assertion or belief, and can be deemed good, bad, right or wrong. It has nothing to do with the right to have opinions, or the people making them.

P.S. On an unrelated matter, I found Alex’s entry on education to be particularly enlightening. For another perspective on things, Amanda has her view on the matter. Food for thought!

P.P.S. I just found that Sarai has coincidentally written about opinions too. Seems like we’re on the same wavelength, though she said it with fewer words. ^^;

P.P.P.S. I’m aware that my link list isn’t working (damn plugin) on my blog, and only the script that rotates my dailies on the front page works. I’m trying to get the list back up ASAP.