"Everything is just an opinion and equally valid, there's no right or wrong answer"

[Hazy]

Does anybody have a problem with this argument and it's relatives?

If there's no right or wrong answer, what's the point of discussing anything in the first place? Why not be silent and be done with it?

Why not say to doctors, "Thanks for your opinion on my health. It's just an opinion though, no more valid than what Bert the butcher has to say though".

Or, "You may say I've broken the speed limit, but since we can't predict speed exactly and quantum mechanics challenges models of causality, it's just an opinion."

That the adherents of this philosophy are very discriminative about which opinions they listen to and which they ignore also shines light on things...

[SheepDog]

This looks an awful lot like a straw man.

[Hazy]

If it is, it's a pretty realistic straw man, as I see some form of "all opinions are equally valid/there's no right/wrong" quite often...

[Bluehaze]

Although you say "That the adherents of this philosophy are very discriminative about which opinions they listen to and which they ignore also shines light on things...," the point which needs to be made before further continuation is that most philosophers distinguish philosophy from mere opinion. The difference being that philosophy at the very least involves opinions supported by good reasoning. If one expresses an opinion without providing supporting reasoning, some may think one has an interesting opinion but not a good philosophy. Philosophy requires one to support his or her opinions.

Nevertheless, the answer to the main question can be derived philosophically. Although because it is philosophical, it can still have many views. Nevertheless, I will mention where most philosophers stand on this subject.

One of the common misconceptions about philosophy is the idea that one person's opinion is as correct as the next person's and that any opinion on a philosophical question is as good or valid or correct as any other opinion. This idea is especially widespread when it comes to opinions on normative questions, that is, questions of values. Let's say one's opinion is that it's okay to underpay the electric company, and his or her roommate's opinion is that it isn't. Some people might hold that the two views are equally correct and that there is no way to settle the matter.

The first thing to notice is that, if one views that it is okay to underpay and his or her roommate's view that it isn't okay to underpay are equally correct, then it is both okay and not okay for one to underpay. That is just unintelligle nonsense.

Another thing to notice is that implied in one's view is that one believes his or her view is correct. To see this, imagine saying to one's roommate, "Well, I think it is okay for me to underpay the electric company, but I believe you are entirely correct when you say that it is not okay for me to underpay the electric company."

That remark also is unintelligible nonsense. The moral: If one express the opinion that value judgments are all equally correct, then nobody will have the faintest notion of what one means when one makes a value judgment.

Despite these considerations, one may still suspect that in philosophy one opinion is as good as the next. But if one does, then one has to concede that the person who says that in philosophy one opinion is not as good as the next is expressing an opinion every bit as good as one's own.

Another idea that people sometimes have when they first enter into philosophy is that "truth is relative." Now, there are numerous things a person might mean by that statement. If he or she means merely that people's beliefs are relative to their perspective or culture, then there is no problem. If, however, the person means that the same sentence might be both true and not true depending on one's perspective or culture, then he or she is mistaken. The same sentence cannot be both true and not true, and whatever a person wished to convey by the remark "Truth is relative," it cannot be that. Of course, two different people from two different cultures or perspectives might mean something different by the same words, but that is a separate issue.

[Hazy]

I'm actually in agreement with you that the view "right/wrong doesn't exist" doesn't work out. The point of the post was that I disagree with it, as the purpose of a discussion is to reach some accepted conclusion, and I was tired of the "no right/wrong" popping up continuously/being insinuated in articles.

(Although reading it over,the opening post wasn't as well worded as it could've been, which is why you interpreted it as being my personal stance).

[SheepDog]

I thought it was pretty obvious that you didn't agree when you posted it.

[Utopmk]

Or, "You may say I've broken the speed limit, but since we can't predict speed exactly and quantum mechanics challenges models of causality, it's just an opinion."



:lol:

I can't wait until I get to use that one!

[heeroyuy]

Or, "You may say I've broken the speed limit, but since we can't predict speed exactly and quantum mechanics challenges models of causality, it's just an opinion."



I like that, but I still prefer the classic joke:
"Sir, do you know how fast you were going?"
"No officer, but I know _exactly_ where I am."

Back on to topic though...



Another idea that people sometimes have when they first enter into philosophy is that "truth is relative." Now, there are numerous things a person might mean by that statement. If he or she means merely that people's beliefs are relative to their perspective or culture, then there is no problem. If, however, the person means that the same sentence might be both true and not true depending on one's perspective or culture, then he or she is mistaken. The same sentence cannot be both true and not true, and whatever a person wished to convey by the remark "Truth is relative," it cannot be that. Of course, two different people from two different cultures or perspectives might mean something different by the same words, but that is a separate issue.


Most people by this, at least when I say this, I mean that _apparent_ truth is relative. The views that one has of what seem to be true, vary from position. That sentence may be totally false, or seem so, from one position, while _seeming_ true for another. The problem is one of syntax, not concept.

[Clara]

You didn't start out meaning that ethical values may disagree, and aren't measurable - and that you are offended that (some people) thereby draw the "conclusion" that none of it matters?

:huh:

[jimkopelli]

Some things are definitely provable... that person is on fire, for example. Whether they're feeling pain or not, of course, is an opinion. (though it's one that most people would agree on.)

[hemanthraz]

Ill be dead if i overwork.- Im sure i will be, my boss is not.
You cant drink rum without a hangover- my opinion now, not my opinion after im drunk.

However
We'll all die- Everyone agrees![except for cryo-zombies who cant open their mouths anyway]

Most things are opinions formed by subjective analysis. But some things as jimkopelli says are definetly provable.Interestingly i could even put it as -the idea in the thread is your opinion.And that would be my opinion...and so on.
Hows that for a non-sequiter!

[jimkopelli]

Sure.

What's that Mark Twain quote... "You don't have to know anything to have an opinion."

[booyalab]

That's not really a straw man fallacy.


I have a HUGE problem with relativists. I've met a lot on this forum, but I'm not surprised since a relativistic approach to truth is more common among Ps. It's all fine and good to say that everyone has different opinions which are based on different things, but if you reason from this statement that since we can't really *know* the truth, and essence precludes existance , then you get the laughable conclusion that all opinions are valid. However most people try to make some distinction between objective truth and subjective truth, it's just that 99% of people don't seem to know the distinction themselves, so I see a lot of inconsistencies.
I'm inclined to think that if you're going to try to conceptualize or build theories on an abstract subject you HAVE to choose one side of the fence. A good analogy is in trying to guess correctly what side a coin is going to land on as many times as you can out of , say, 15. Since it can't logically land on both sides simultaneously, you'll need to choose only one each time. It is more probable that you will get the maximum # of correct guesses if you choose ONLY heads or tails each time, for all of the times, than if you guess each time based on what the previous one was, or based on a hunch. The best decisions are made on principle, not from interpreting each circumstance subjectively.

[SheepDog]

booyalab, Is this the kind of thing you meant when you used the word "relativists"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativist
Am I reading this correctly that you mean it in an epistemological sense? [And I am using that word as it is dicussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology ]

If this is about discussing our views about what can be "known", then how about having such a discussion, instead of holding a poorly formed and incomplete argument up so that people who disagree can knock holes in it?

[SheepDog]

I found this definition of "Relativist fallacy" which I think is a key argument against the original statement, as has been argued in this thread (above):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativist_fallacy

The relativist fallacy, also known as the subjectivist fallacy, is a logical fallacy committed, roughly speaking, when one person claims that something may be true for one person but not true for someone else.
There's more there if you care to follow the link.

Interestingly, on the same page it states:

On the one hand, those discussions of the relativist fallacy which make the fallacy out to be identical to relativism (e.g., linguistic relativism or cultural relativism) are themselves committing a commonly-identified fallacy of informal logic, namely, begging the question against an earnest, intelligent, logically-competent relativist. It is itself a fallacy to describe a controversial view as a "fallacy"--not, at least, without arguing that it is a fallacy. In any event, it will not do to argue as follows:

1) To advocate relativism, even some sophisticated relativism, is to commit the relativist fallacy.
2) If one commits a fallacy, one says something false or not worth serious consideration.
3) Therefore, to advocate relativism, even some sophisticated relativism, is to say something false or not worth serious consideration.

Virtually no philosopher worth his salt would take such an argument seriously; it is a fine example of circular reasoning.

[Lucas]

The best decisions are made on principle, not from interpreting each circumstance subjectively.

That is if the principle, a basic generalization that is accepted as true and that can be used as a basis for reasoning or conduct, is a good one.

In the case of a coin toss, then yes going on probability would be the best decision. But heuristics can have horrible consequences WHEN APPLIED TO PEOPLE. They are the source of prejudice, racism and ethnocentrism to name a few things.

Instead of relying on our 'principles' (however noble or true one may think they are), we would be better off interpreting each circumstance or each person based on the real empirical information we get about them.

When it comes to socio-cultural interactions, we could use a big dose of relativism.

[Edmond Zedo]

The "opinion card," as I shall henceforth call it, is one litmus test for unworthy debate opponents. It serves no purpose to any debate, but may let said person slip away without watching their arguments fall apart.

[Sackanaka]

I've thought Democracy was established to compensate for individualistic judgmental behavior. That way everyone can choose a side and have to live with the results or get booed for being unpatriotic.
It's true that people ought to take a strong (if not hypothetical at least) stance in order to get things working, but another counterargument would be to take into account all that has happened until the moment of judgment. That coin example is far too simple; too use that would imply that many judgments involve only a few variables when in reality, the whole frickin world can be pretty much intertwined conceptually. Third-world Shamanists who believe blood of dog will cure what ails ya- I wonder how long it will be until someone convinces them that their convictions have been pretty inaccurate scientifically. Or perhaps they're right- placebo effects are powerful too. Judgment / Perceiving should be balanced for optimal efficiency, I believe. Hence, the beginning of this post.
As for phallacies, they're too messy for me to handle. I can barely handle my own.

[SheepDog]

As for phallacies, they're too messy for me to handle. I can barely handle my own.
I know that's just a typo, but it's darn funny.

[Sackanaka]

typo? ;P

[jimkopelli]

That's a Pratchett typo, nonetheless...

Typos can be intentional...

[cuspuser]

i don't much in the way of time here ...

but it is important to note that the statement "everything is just an opinion and equally valid ..." comes from the problems of determining what culture has the answer right ...

so lets say instead of butcher a and doctor a being asked what is the right course of action to take in combating an illness instead someone goes to a practioner of western medicine and the other goes to a holistic practioner ... what opinion do you take, what is right? (easy answer, the one that worked, tougher answer, what if they both worked or neither, or in this case the holistic approach worked, but another time western medicine worked)

it gets even more complicated when you look at social norms and customs, especially when you take this consideration over time, and the question do we have the right to tell other cultures how to run their society based on our beliefs? In some cases i'd say yes, to ensure a certain level of human rights, ex. no slavery, try to get equality, but what about the whole cold war, apart of this occuring was based on the idea that there was only one right way to structure a country, either via capitialism or communism, are either of these right answers and are they not just opinions? wouldn't we be better off if all options were tried out so we could see the results?

and then there are the questions with no answers that can be grounded by empirical evidence, or put more accurately for which you can't even begin to accumulate empirical data - for these i'd think the opinions are equally valid ... tho one may not be as desired as another for various reasons.

in other words this problematic credo came about from the noble aspirations of cultural tolerence, it also came about from realizing that right and wrong is as much of a stamp of cultural approval as it is a reflection of nature (whatever that means!), and tho it doesn't apply for all things its original intention is something to consider when looking at this statement (as it wasn't meant to apply to things such as noted in the original post, hence problematic).

[Arcael]

... Or, "You may say I've broken the speed limit, but since we can't predict speed exactly and quantum mechanics challenges models of causality, it's just an opinion."...


Hah my chemistry teacher wanted to try to push that to get out of his speeding ticket