Relativity of Opinion

[silverDistortioN]

continued from the "What are you listening to" thread...

ok i will cool off, for today at least. but opinions can be wrong
for example i could say 'murder is a great thing to commit' but obviously this opinion is WRONG. correct, once Kilu has his opinion it cannot be changed, but i wish it would from time to time when his opinion is wrong.suppose you lived in germany during the holocaust. would it be wrong to murder hitler?

of course, this is more of an idealistic case... however, when one would come to think in the same way as the "wrongly" opinionated, his opinions suddenly have a glint of reasonability.

(i will have to ponder this a bit more before i continue.)

[daniel]

I will say this and let u ponder;)

I said it before but got blasted but if u take this meaning the way it is presented u will find opinions can be wrong.

I am a murderer. I murder cause I am a twisted git in this case. It is my opinion that it is right for me never to be caught!

Is that opinion wrong?

Is kasparov the greatest human chess player to have lived? is that an opinion. I think not, he certainly is. Sometimes no matter what the opinion it can be wrong given enough thought, there are lots that can be disputed, hell they try in vain to say kasparov is not the best chess player to have lived. their opinions are wrong. Mine is not always right but in some circumstanes i truly believe i am vindicated. in others they are pure opinions that i cannot argue with

Also, I myself knew it was not a guys name but I am very interested now to find out why bunbun:):):)

Anyway thast all for today i have nothing further to add really:)

EDIT: i made yojimbo take that quote off casue it was me who presented him with it;) he use the same logic as my argument though the copy;) haha

[silverDistortioN]

Socrates once conjectured that it is a greater punishment for the unjust to never be punished. was he wrong?

at any rate... the situation with the murderer going free lacks detail.
for one, why does he think he should go free?
i'm just going to say, for the sake of argument, because he feels that being kept in jail and being sentenced to death is a hypocritical and unjust sentiment.

actually, that's going a bit too far in my favor... instead i'm going to say it's because he's scared to go to jail.

now... why is he scared to go to jail? of course, because he values his freedom...

and why is he of the opinion that he should go free? of course, because he believes the freedom of an individual is more important than the life of another. (edit: actually, after reading this, i should have said he believes the freedom of one individual is more important that the justice of another.)

so is his opinion still so wrong?

now excuse me while i ponder this enough to put it in terms of all possibilities...

addendum: one must first have a reason to form an opinion, or else one would have never formed it in the first place. and it is because of this that no opinion can be wrong.

[daniel]

the point was that he believes he should be able to commit murder forever, it is his opinion (and a wrong one as common sense would say) so kilu don't argue with him hes a nice murderer............;)

[silverDistortioN]

well, in that case, my point was *why* does he think he should be allowed to commit murder forever? (ie. what is his logic? that's to avoid getting an answer like "because he's a twisted git.")

[Astrolounge]

I thought the greatest chess player was Deep Blue...

[silverDistortioN]

Is kasparov the greatest human chess player to have lived? is that an opinion. I think not, he certainly is. Sometimes no matter what the opinion it can be wrong given enough thought, there are lots that can be disputed, hell they try in vain to say kasparov is not the best chess player to have lived. their opinions are wrong. Mine is not always right but in some circumstanes i truly believe i am vindicated. in others they are pure opinions that i cannot argue withi contend that Bobby Fischer is the greatest human chess player to have ever lived. now, prove me wrong.

[Lord Draud]

to some degree nothing it perfectly right because we are only human and we make mastakes and like they said in Fight Club "given a long enough time line every ones survival rate drops to 0" i take it to also mean that tehre is aways a chance somethign will bewrong thus ntohing is perfect

[Elhaym van Houten]

...
now this is getting interesting :)

maybe it would be good to make a distinction about the meaning of "opinion", "fact", "wrong" and "right"...
it would help us out a bit, I think.

Let's start with opinion...an opinion is a subjective view on a certain topic or thing (e.g. I like Uematsu's music, for me he is the best composer of vgm ever)

A fact is something that can be proven by hard, objective evidence, things you can count or measure (e.g. "Kasparov is currently the best chessplayer in professional chess, because he won .... games"...this does not include all the non-professional geniuses of chess out there ;) )
Now, this example holds an opinion and a fact. Fact is that he has won a lot of tournaments. Opinion is the assumption that therefore he is the best.
It is based on a fact, but it is still a opinion. You can't argue the fact, but you can argue the opinion, because there can be so many other reasons and facts why someone might say a chess player is the best.

Now, how about "wrong" and "right"?
Here it would be good the make a distinction between the ethical "wrong" (like murdering, or ruling the world with a regime of dictatorship and violence and such) and "right" on the one hand, and factual "wrong" and "right" (like 2 +2 = 4 and such) on the other hand.

:) now go and ponder those examples you gave again.
I'd like to see of one where an opinion is factual right or wrong, but is still a subjective opinion, not only a fact.
Quite a challenge, but I'm curious if something like that exists ;)

[jetblue]

Aw man go back to argueing about game music.
C'mon. I overherd that Mitsuda...kicked Umet...ponder.
*goes back to tavern with head down*

[Zeugma 440]

Thanks for making things clearer, Elhaym :)

I guess that the discussion on Uematsu went out of control because people were trying to prove that their opinions were right, using irrelevant arguments because they were in a hurry (caught in a posting frenzyness, to put it in other words).

As Silver said, an opinion is before all something purely subjective, and the only fact that it has been formed is enough to consider that it is subjectively right. Saying that it is universally, objectively right is something completely different.

Now with arguing opinions : we tend to argue each other's opinions because we have another point of view / experience on the issue (e.g. core VGM fans who know more than the obvious, famous composers ;) ). The facts that we know plus our personal tastes thus change our way of considering the subject : that's how our opinion is formed.

A duel of opinions can thus be considered as a matter of proving that our (subjective) point of view on the matter can be objectively right, using facts and logic as means of persuasion.
But everybody has their tastes, their pride and personal involvement (which is most of the time spoiling the discussion and generating stupid arguments) and their own experience (here : the example of holocaust / murdering Hitler).

That is precisely what makes a discussion look like a duel, because every participant releases unexpected information ("weapons", as Yojimbo said :D ) in order to defend his point of view. If everyone keep being serious and accept to admit their ignorance (yeah, that sometimes has to be done), the outcome can really be worthy and useful for every participant.

[Yojimbo]

originally posted by silverDistortioN
i contend that Bobby Fischer is the greatest human chess player to have ever lived. now, prove me wrong.
this is absolutely ridiculous, Kasparov is without any shadow of a doubt the best human chess player to have lived, the stats are there, you shouldnt have said it for this may create another heated argument.

Was this 'Bobby Fischer' the person chosen to challenge Deep Blue or Deep thought, i think not, therefore Kasparov was picked so the computer has a challenge.

I never heard of this 'Fischer' guy so i am not sure if he was dead at the time the deep machines were created, but never the less Kasparov would have beaten him

[Zeugma 440]

I fear your last post contains no valuable arguments, Yojimbo. Let me explain :

- §1 : Silver did not want to provocate daniel ! He wanted him to prove that his example about his "right opinion" (here, he chose the statement "Kasparov is the best human chess player to have lived") was well-founded. It's a way of testing a theory by trying a counter-example, not a way to argue !

- §2 : that's a weak argument. What indicates that the comittee who chose Kasparov wasn't wrong ? If you have searched for documentation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Fischer), you would have learned that Fisher had been implied in political troubles in the 90's, due to his personal opinions considering Israel. I'll let you read the rest....

- §3 : Rule #1 about debates Always get info before saying anything. The only fact that you do not know anything about Fischer is enough to invalidate your argumentation.

Next time, try and think before posting, please. I do not say that to bother you, nor to be hostile to you ! I'm trying to help you forming a good argumentation by showing you what's wrong in your way of debating :spin:

[daniel]

Now let me say. Astrolounge I said the best human chess player, not best chess thing. kasparov is the best player anyway based on:

1. The overwhelming OPINION of the chess community, and none of us can argue with them

2. The fact that he beat deepblue in 1996 and actually the 1997 match was a void match (let's not forget that he humiliated it in game 1 of 6). crude and deliberate cheat by ibm, a crude exploitation that resulted in them gaining lots of PR. Then they dismantled it and refused to play a rematch with kasparov (if this was an scientific experiment why would they do this?). If they would have accepted and if they would have agreed to a nicer set of conditions...i.e. openess he would as he said "tear it to pieces", go and watch 'Game Over: kasparov and the machine'. :) Also lets just stop and think here even if the comp did beat kasparov fairly (which it did not) is the score of 1 game extra total proof deep blue was better? of course not. Most of the chess community consider it a fluke win anyway. bring on the rematch IBM you set of cheats

3. He drew against Deep junior in 2003 even though he accepted the draw from a winning position scared that if he ended up losing people would write him off and take the piss like they did after 1997. Deep junior is far more advanced than deep blue at chess although it did 3 million moves per sec and not 200 million. This is irrelevant, it is the knowledge of chess and not "brute force" that ultimately matters.

4. Rank points: He has the most rank points ever gained by anyone

5. He boasts practically the greatest game of all time which he won against karpov.

6. His win ratio is unmatched.

Sorry but this one is decided, fact not opinion, kasparov is the best and he would boot deep blue in if they allowed a rematch which they won't cause all along the idea was to beat kasparov at all costs then get lots of money and PR for it, they tricked him into believing it was a scientific experiment...it was more like a pentagon experiment. Kasparov made a huge blunder on game 6 caused by his utter contempt for the game that had turned nasty, game 2 was a fraud. He was tired and miserable. THAT MATCH MAKES ME PISSED OFF lol.

hmm actually kramnik I think he's called could be a future favourite but as of now, kasparov :) in any case people would argue that it was neither bobby or kasparov who are the greatest but their opinions are certainly 100% wrong.

now back to game music argument. Uematsu i suppose and whether opinion can be wrong:) Elhaym had a nice way of putting it and in its nbasic form he is right, but i believe there is a cut off point where enough facts about someting destroys an opinion that is reasonably related. i.e. enough facts on kasparov's chess history destroy the opinion that he isn't the greatest.

[silverDistortioN]

ah, excellent argument daniel. but of course, i did not pick bobby fischer for his actual ability. i picked him because he became a political prisoner for what he believes in (ie. chess).

but now, the question changes from "who is the greatest chess player?" to "who would be the most likely person in the world to win a match?"
and of course, we take into account numerous statistics and calculate that in fact, kasparov would be.

IN FACT.

while i was thinking about this last night, one childhood memory came to mind. i recall once on some school work, we had to label numerous sentences as "fact" or "opinion." one line said something like "jake thinks strawberry ice cream is the best." my thought process was "well, it's a fact that "jake thinks strawberry ice cream tastes the best," but it's his opinion that "strawberry ice cream tastes the best." of course, i decided to put the latter because i didn't think 4th grade material would go so deeply into it, but there's definitely confusion to be had. i contend that we may come to label an "opinion" as wrong because a fact itself is improperly labeled as opinion.

(time for the next class, i'll continue later)

[Elhaym van Houten]

yeah, a great argument, based on a lot of facts :) very solid and convincing.
Only keep in mind that it still is only your subjective opinion that because of all these facts Kasparov is the best chess player alive.
If someone was of a different opinion, he might change it after reading all those facts - or he might bring up the facts why he is of the opinion that somebody else is the best chess player alive.
Now either you can change your opinion, or leave it, and both of you keep their opinions, but you both got new info to consider while forming your opinions.

Nothing wrong with any of these scenarios - as long as none of you is on a rampage that his opinion is right and every other one is wrong and tries to convince the other ;)

:) thanks for giving us all those facts - I never knew much about professional chess, be it Kasparov or Bobby Fisher

[Yojimbo]

well i have had enough of these debates on opinions and facts, i believe what i want to believe, and the rest of you do the same. Hopefully we can now let this debate die off, and move on to a debate with more importance.

[silverDistortioN]

i completely agree, Elly. =)

but of course, the argument here isn't really whether or not Kasparov is the greatest chess player. it would be whether or not one is truly wrong in thinking there is an even greater chess player.

now, to continue where i left off... the difference in whether one can be wrong or not depends on whether he supports a fact or an opinion. one can support a mistaken fact (ie. a wrong one [it just sounds better to say "mistaken fact" than "wrong fact"]), but the worst off one can be in supporting an opinion, in my opinion, is supporting an opinion based on mistaken facts. however, in supporting an opinion based on mistaken facts, one demonstrates that under certain circumstances, the opinion will be supported if these facts were true. therefore, the opinion will always be valid if not always supported.

let me put this into terms of logic...
if A, then B. this is our supposition. it is my assumption that one (that is, this specific, fictitious person) will only support conclusion B if he thinks it is the right thing to do in light of A facts.

...now that i see it in writing, i can see exactly where our disagreement lies...

those of us who believe an opinion can never be wrong think the statement "if these facts are true, then this conclusion is the correct one" is the opinion. however, those of us who believe that an opinion can be wrong think the statement "this conclusion is the correct one" is the opinion.

and having said that, i think i'll change my opinion.

addendum:
well i have had enough of these debates on opinions and facts, i believe what i want to believe, and the rest of you do the same. Hopefully we can now let this debate die off, and move on to a debate with more importance. what makes this debate so unimportant? in a world so highly influenced by politics, i would think the validity of opinions would matter a great deal.

[daniel]

well, i just see a lot of hosility to people who try to rubbish anothers opinion. this should not be the case. If I try to rubbish it its up to people to counter me , not just say I am an arrogant git (often i am ;)) and opinions are never wrong and should always be respected.

I like colour red, you like colour blue. This is pure opinion it is clear neither is better than the other. However brown or grey is a crap colour compared to blue.red. why becasue tastes of humans say so. Its crap colour to most humans, but literally it is no different to blue or red, its a stimulous. so although to most people, brown is crap its still just an opinion and a stimuli with absolutely nothing to back it up as being better or disprooving an opinion that blue/red is better.

An opinion becomes a fact when there are enough facts to disproove the opinion and i believe this is possible in lots of places:) lots of places yes, its just taste and just opinion. I think hardcore music is a waste of time. i consider it a fact that classical is more talented than hardcore music. I base this on the fact hardcore is repetative and has little imagination or melody. Is this fact, what are your opinions;) *smiles*

[silverDistortioN]

it seems we're confusing fact and opinion. =)
no matter how obvious something may seem to you, it may never be a certainty, and therefore may never be a fact.

anyway... i contend that an opinion can only be wrong if its foundational basis is wrong. (but even then, it may still be valid.)

if two people, given the same entire body of information, come to different conclusions on a particular subject, then neither conclusion can ultimately be proven wrong. or do you think otherwise?

[Kilu]

I believe that opinions formed by personal taste can not be wrong. I like lasagne more than pizza, for you it might be vice verca. Neither of us is wrong. In my opinion lasagne is better than pizza.
However, opinions that are based on solid facts (Kasparov) can be wrong. Mostly if the facts are incorrect or lacking. Obviously if someone is misinformed that persons opinion has been built on faulty base. And thus can be wrong and possibly changed (unless that someone is hardheaded, no intention of actually debate, rather than make everyone else agree with ones views. Anyone remember Lina and the infamous M$ evil empire vs. Sony PS2 god like machine debate on the old forums), when countered with more/real facts.

But the thing is, where does the line go? When does opinion change to a fact?

hardcore music
Depends totally on your definition of hardcore music. It's a rather vague 'genre'. IF you are talking about metal, I might add that metal and classical music share quite a lot of melodical aspects. Of course there are different styles of metal as well, some more melodic than others. If you are not talking about hardcore metal, but some othe hardcore music, then disregard my comment. Besides, I'm offtopic?

[daniel]

"When does opinion change to a fact?...."

it does at some point, always a line. depends on situation i suppose. When enough people compare 2 things that have associated facts....then i suppose a concensus is reached. where something becomes good and something becomes best.

This is an impossible argument you know:), its very very hard for an opinionated species like us to reach a true definition of fact and opinion, but sometimes the line is crossed so much that almost everyone agrees...then i would strongly argue, a proper concensus has been reached and that the opinion on something validated/ invalidated.

Thats not to say the person with the "crap" opinion is lying to himself. NO it is just that he is wrong. arghhh i will let u guys sort it out, i am going for a drink of juice

[silverDistortioN]

concensus does not imply fact. but rather, quite the opposite, i would think.

and the difference between fact and opinion isn't so hard to come to terms with... (although i do find it a bit of a shock that some of us just went into a whole debate without a concrete definition.)

fact can be scientifically proven.
mistaken fact can be scientifically disproved.
opinion cannot be either proven or disproved, except by non-scientific means.

this is where the line is drawn.

[Ephraim]

I'm almost scared to bring this up, but...

Can someone's opinion also be considered a fact, if only in the sense that "It's a fact that Joe Schmoe likes pickles?" The scientific test being, of course, a question ("do you like pickles?") directed to Joe and a plate of pickles handed to him. Or perhaps in this case it would be wiser to put a time on it, as "I liked Salami sandwiches until last year," so that if the opinion ever changed, the fact (the "fact about the opinion," if you will) would still remain valid?

[silverDistortioN]

well, yes... but that would be a bit like saying "the temperature is 20 degrees celcius" should be "the temperature is 20 degrees celcius at this moment" in order to keep it from being false.

but in either case, the fact that he has that opinion is definitely a fact; just because we lack the technology to prove something beyond the shadow of a doubt does not necessarily mean it cannot be proven.

HOWEVER, this is not to say that anything can be proven given a specific level of technology; as long as people differ, there will be at least one person in the world who prefers the color brown... no matter how much scientific evidence supports that the human mind naturally prefers blue.

[Elhaym van Houten]

I agree with Silver, that there is a definite line to be drawn between facts and opinions.

Facts are things that can, even if you try very hard, not be disproven
Opinion can be based upon facts, but even more often on the subjective perception of facts or situations or reality in an individual. And even if a consensus is reached between a lot of people regarding their interpretation of facts and their conclusion, it still is a subjective opinion...
who decides the criteria that select the facts on which that consensus is based?
Scientifically speaking, an opinion can only be "right" if it can not be disproven, no matter how hard you try. But then it is, per definition, no longer an opinion, but a fact...
:D mind me, this is a scientifical point of view on the topic.

What is confusing in our everyday life is the fact that we encounter a lot of different opinions, and a lot are very solidly based or well argued...
and I think we all know the situation that someone has a better founded opinion on something, while ours is simply based on gut feeling (the famous I like it because I like it :D ).
If our opinion is important to us, and it feels right, we might feel intimidated by the better argued one, and start defending our opinion....
which can turn out pretty nasty, if we try to meet the other in a logical argument. In this scenrio, the best possibility would be to resort to personal taste - something like: I can see you have a lot of points why A is better than be - but still, I like B better. To me, it feels better, sounds better, smells better etc.
^^ no way we can prove this right, but also no way anyone can disprove it ;)

^^ sorry, gotta go - I'll think some more about this, though :)

[TheDragonKnight]

heh i think this was missing. here is a FACT to start off my post

Opinion defined as: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty

Acroding to princeston it is impossible for an opinion to be wrong, after all it is simply, well your opinion. (no heres the fun part, you can tell me to sod off if in your opinion you think the bookworms at princeton are wong, i happen to beleive they are right)

alright i admit it i looked taht up just to be annoying :P but seriously that follows what i beleive as well, somones opinion is theirs and cannot be wrong, to use the food example if you tell me you think pizza is better i can hardly tell you thats WRONG. im sure you of all people who be the best qualified to state what you like after all (i happen to agree with kilu however about the food choice)

The facts you base your opinion on may evn be wrong but you opinion it self cannot be wrong after all an opinion ccan be sumemd up as "i think <insert thought here>. noone cann tell you thats wrong after all you jsut thought it! where would somone get off telling you what your thinking?

back to the chess argument, you specifed "greatest human player" but then proceded to compare the man to a computer! am i the only one who sees a problem with your chosen counter argument? <yes i under stand the idea wasent to prove whos the better chess player but show that an opinion cant be inherently wrong>

and opinion is the basis for our form of government, we all find a political figure whos opinions we agree with and we vote for him (i will point and laugh at anyone who thinks facts live for long in a political election debate)

Facts are elusive litte buggers in day to day life, tehy dont come often we are infact ruled by a collections of assumptions we call commen sence (whihc is seems by exaples in various palces (traffic being a prime one) might not be as common as some would think.


i promise this made sence when i typed it so if you think im full of it it msut be your fault (hey look another opinion! and i predict seeing some more opinios about mine :D)

[silverDistortioN]

excellent job making sense, TDK. i commend you. ^.~

however, i do have one little quibble with what you (and princeton, apparently) have come to conclude...

after all an opinion ccan be sumemd up as "i think <insert thought here>. noone cann tell you thats wrong after all you jsut thought it! where would somone get off telling you what your thinking?yes, no one can tell you what you're thinking. however, the statement "i think <insert thought here>" is in fact not an opinion, but a fact. you are, in fact, thinking. the opinion is "<insert thought here>." according to your definition, anyway... which i will restate to make a point:

Opinion defined as: a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certaintya personal belief or judgment. do you believe that you think ice cream is good? or do you believe that ice cream is good?

now, i can't really offer an example of an opinion that can be considered wrong, but according to the simple logic i've written out those few posts ago, i do believe it's *possible*... i just don't happen to know the qualifications an opinion would need to be considered completely and ultimately wrong.

[daniel]

no i didn't compare the computer to kasparov on the opinion side. that was just to quell the opinion that kasparov was outplayed by deepblue. he wasn't (thats actually a fact damn you IBM).

No, the "opinion" was that alot of ppl do not believe kasparov is the best HUMAN chess player to have lived. He is...fact but still strangely called opinion.

You see my argument now?

[silverDistortioN]

this reminds me of the time i said it was a matter of fact that our old boards weren't as good as some of the other boards out there. the fact that Otter disagreed with me reminded me otherwise.

the fact that anyone can disagree with you on whether or not there is a better player than kasparov and the fact that you cannot DISPROVE them should tell you that it is in fact your opinion that kasparov is the best.

yes, you can list as many reasons you can think of why he's a great player... but only until you prove to me that no one exists who kasparov can't beat will i reconsider my opinion on that.

[daniel]

well let's see....Kasparov had NOT lost 1 match to anyone por anything in his life (until the farce that was deep blue). He had won all other opponents and still has the best win ratio and number 1 rank (and the chess community agree that he is the best to have lived). Doesn't that speak volumes?

If I sound arrogant then thats fine, if you disagree or anyone does that kasparov is not the greatest human chess player of all time and to have ever played then all i say is.....YOU ARE WRONG, YOU'RE OPINION IS WRONG;)

and that goes for some other things too....opinion can and frequently is wrong (obviously not anywhere near always).

[silverDistortioN]

http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~larryc/proofs/proofs.html

addendum: on second thought, i take that back. first, tell me what condition(s) you think an opinion must meet in order to be wrong.

[daniel]

its difficult to answer, but given enough facts on something , and the collective opinions on something. An opinion on something (not anything)can simply be shown to be either wrong or rubbish. Thats right, a rubbish opinion...and there are loads of them even if they aren't categorized as wrong (which a few most certainly are)

[PS we gonna have another game of chess I am 2-0 down against you i think, i have been praticing)

[silverDistortioN]

its difficult to answer, but given enough facts on something , and the collective opinions on something.enough facts... you need to keep in mind that all facts are not weighted equally from one person to another when opinions are formed.

collective opinions... do you mean kinda like how galileo was executed after he declared the sun to be the center of the solar system?

An opinion on something (not anything)can simply be shown to be either wrong or rubbish.well... most things seem like common sense at first glance. 1+1=2, for example. "what do you mean 1+1=2?! show me some proof!" how foolish could one be to make such a demand, you say! it's so obvious!

but what if there were a case where 1+1 DOESN'T equal 2?!
you could list as many examples... one pencil plus one pencil comes out to two pencils... one fork plus one fork comes out to two forks... but it never really proves that it is truly impossible for 1+1 to equal anything other than 2...

how can something so simple be so hard to prove?! perhaps it is in fact impossible to prove...

but luckily it is not. the proof is right... here (http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/51551.html)!

now... would you agree with the distinction between fact and opinion being possibility of proof? and also, would you agree that some people weigh some facts differently than others in forming an opinion? if so, would you say it is wrong to weigh a certain fact more than another?

[Ephraim]

A-ha! 1 glassful of water + 1 more glassful of water can alternately equal 2 glassfuls of water, 1 large glass of water, 1 small bowl of water, or 1 large puddle! Three answers there are not 2!http://www.rpgamers.info/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[silverDistortioN]

you forgot to convert your units.

...1 centimeter plus one meter equals one length! =o

^.~

[Ephraim]

True that, but I'm still right. The "length" thing is true,too. :spin:

I suppose, though, that if you could play such havoc with units of measure, math would be so complex it would take another Einstein or something to understand it.

Things like (to use examples earlier) 1 pencil + 1 pencil = 1 pile of wood + graphite, or 1 fork + 1 fork = 1 mass of steel.

[TheDragonKnight]

hmm this is quickly degenerating, time to try and restore thread.

silver i think your using too much double think the "i think <insert thought here>" is my universal opinion format, since an opinion isnt fact its only something you beleive regardless of what facts may be behind this thought, it is still only your opinon. for example i can say "i think bush is a freaking nut ball" and i can even have facts to back it up, infact in this case legions of facts to back it up. however the fact that he got put back in for a second term shows two things either the american people dont care that hes a freaking nutball, or that the american people dont share my opinion of bush. <not attempting to turn this into a bush thread, only picking a prominent example.> While i would treat this statment like a fact personaly, it is still obviously only my opinion, even if a large number of peopole agreed with it.


as for the chess player im actually inclinded to agree about Kasparov however just to be a dink im gonna argue the other way. am im also going to illistruate the practical impossiblity to "prove" something that is not mathamatical in nature.

Leaving aside the deep blue farce as you call it since i lack the knowledge to argue on that. You contend that Kasparov is the greatest human chess player. i say you are holding an opinion not a fact. why? becasue the FACT that you have is that he is the greatest chess player to compete in that specifc form, league, competetion, whatever you call it. The chess community (who ever they are) may agree among them selves that hes the best, but again that is only their opinion. For all you know there could be some 90 yearl old hermit with a home made chess set sitting in a cabin on some god forsaken peice of land in romania or something, and this man could conceivably posses the skill to kick Kasparov's ass up and down while doing the Newyork times sunday edition crossword in pen. You posess compelling reasons to beleive that he is the best, indeed you even have a few facts to back it but you are taking your facts one step too far, he has not won every games hes palyed. hes won every DOCUMENTED game hes played. that is the fact. your opinion is that hes the greatest chess player alive, the FACT is that hes the greatest chess player among the people hes had matches against.

further you contend that we are wrong if we do not agree with your opinion, that IS arrogant as you pointed out. and this makes you the person who is incorrect since an opinion CANNOT be right or wrong, it simply is. the sun isnt right or worng it jsut is, a rock cannot be rong its just there. My opinion cannot be wrong because it is an opinion, defined as someting that cannot be proven or disproven. you may atempt to use other facts and opinions to change my opinion, but even if i do change it that still does not make my first opinion wrong(incorrect).

i can say something totaly ridiclous and even stupid like "hitler was a benevloent person and would hqve done good for the world if he'd been unopposed" that statment is prehaps the biggest load of bullshit ever spoken on the RPGN fourms, however it is not wrong it is just stupid. an opinion is exempt from right or worng, becasue someone stating their opinion is stating their beleif. an opinion is someone standing up and saying "this is what i beleive" your opinion may be founded on facts that are incorrect or badly interperted but it doesnt change your beleif.

to use a line from MIB that fits quite well. "1500 years ago everybody KNEW the earth was the center of the universe, 500 years ago everybody KNEW the earth was flat, and 15 minute sago you KNEW that people were alone on ths planet" this makes it obviousl that even if every person on the planet beleives the same thing its still not fact (since we can obviously observe that the world is not flat) it is still an opinion, a colelctive agreement doesnt make it fact just a widespread opinion.

the people living in those times held those as facts, hell people were executed for saying otherwise! you are still confusing opinion with facts i think and have yet to grasp that no opinion can be wrong, it is my opinion i hold it and even if i later dedide on someting else its not wrong. For instance if i said vanilla icecream was my favorite (which it was for a long time) then later decide butterscotch ripple (drool) is better that doesnt make my first opinioin wrong. simply different, and thats as far it can be taken.

and noone of that touble talk that its a FACT that its my opinon that Kasparov is the best, please you aviod the actucal topic without adding to it at all.

a sad fact of life is that you cant be 100% sure of anything, proof (required for facts) astonishingly rare, we instaed subistute what we call common sence for the truisms of our lives ( you go to work/school everyday, you get paid fridays, the sun rises every morning.) These things happen day to day, but they cannot be proven till after they have happened. ( i did go to work today, i got paid last friday, the sun rose) the likelyhood of these events happening is very high, almost a certianty, but things could interfer (you could get fired, your paycheck could be delayed or garnished, the sun might go nova (it'd take us something like 8 minutes to notice but hey :P, or an evil super viullan might even build some device to block out the sun to further his own power company, err whops wrong series.)

ive blabed enough time to sit back and watch the flames.

[daniel]

now u see when i am sober I will go into this more but you helped me some way....people used to think the earth was flat, that was a large opinion....but we all know through FACT that this OPINION was WRONG:)

[TheDragonKnight]

no you still dont get it, an opinion is DEFINED as something that cannot be right or wrong. that simple. it is only your opinion.a fact is right and wrong, your opinion is beyond that.

[M.H.A.Q.S.]

An opinion arises from personal experiences and desires thus they may be based on facts. Most of the people that we see walking around us everyday in our life turn out to be entities composed of common behaviors and concepts. They try to create facts out of their opinions and mostly prove themselves wrong. The only really facts are those created out of nature and its rules.

Random creation and destruction is a prime part of nature and thus it does not make sense for any linear lifeform to understand this. As time passes by, humans change their opinions about nature and their socities but they never really change the rules of nature.

Anyways, i think...opinions can be wrong depending on the facts they were formed from. Facts can also be wrong with respect to time and if you observe history this has been proved.

I hope i have not confused theories with opinions and facts with laws...:). But you know guys...my head STILL HURTS!!!!

[silverDistortioN]

in reply to daniel and TDK's arguments:

the simple fact is an opinion is NOT defined as something that cannot be wrong. otherwise there would be no debate.

furthermore, what daniel offered is not an example of an opinion as it was given earlier on in the debate... but it was in the other thread, so i'll paste it here:

(i mean, of course, something other than, say, a doctor's opinion. language can be tricky that way.)what you have given is an example of what i would classify as a "mistaken fact"... what we are debating is whether or not one's viewpoint can be considered wrong and under what circumstances would they be considered wrong. i think everyone would agree that if someone said "i am of the opinion that 1+1=3," their "opinion" would be wrong.

furthermore, your logic, TDK, is that no one can tell you what you're thinking. therefore, no one can tell you that the statement "i [that's you, TDK] think strawberry ice cream tastes good" is wrong. but, just as an example, if you said something like "i think poop tastes good" when you in fact do not think poop tastes good, then you yourself can say, "why, that is wrong!"

i could have in fact proven (ie. demonstrated it is a fact) that you think a particular thought (ie. be of the opinion of a particular opinion), but i think this is a better way of illustrating that the "opinion format" you give does not illustrate an opinion but a fact. the opinion would be, again, "strawberry ice cream tastes good."

[TheDragonKnight]

hmm i would tend to agree but point out that even if i change my opinion it doesnt make my previous one 'wrong' jsut my old opinion, this debate could chenge my previously stated opinions about this topic, it may make me wrong but it does not make the opinon wrong.

[silverDistortioN]

hmm i would tend to agree but point out that even if i change my opinion it doesnt make my previous one 'wrong'point taken, but just for the record, i never said otherwise. =)

[TheDragonKnight]

well i had simply meant that with that qulaifier id agree with your position :D