RedFive said:

Is anyone still reading all of his long posts?

What do you mean, "still"?

as I tried doing for many previous pages on the topic of remakes is that you really cannot follow anyone else's argument but your own.

I don't remember much of it right now, but I vividly remember how you couldn't follow my music analogy.

I explained why saying a pencil will fall to the floor when dropped is not a fact (its merely a prediction). Your rebuttal consisted of saying, 'well you know what I really meant, like in a everyday conversational sense and how dare you be intellectual about it!'

Whether you could follow it or not, when I said it, here's the thing:

What you did was needless hairsplitting. A worthy discussion to be having in some other context, but pretty useless here.
My equivalent with opinions, however isn't. One kind of opinion is completely subjective and doesn't describe a factual circumstance - the other does, and is merely less certain than, well, certain knowledge. It was an important distinction in this context.

Why? Well...
If I get accused of fighting someone's opinion as if it were a fact, I wanna know which kind of opinion it was to begin with.
Because the dichotomy you're apparently basing these accusations on, namely that it's either an opinion, or debunkable, is a false dichotomy.

This leads me to believe that maybe if you're saying I'm debunking an opinion as if it were a fact, I wasn't really treating it as a fact, I was merely treating it as a wrong or fallacious judgment, which a judgment, i.e. the "second" kind of opinion... CAN be.

So instead of treating an opinion as fact... I'm treating a debunkable opinion as a debunkable opinion.
That's just one example demonstrating how making the distinctions I'm making, is essential.



Yours, however?
Fact, prediction. Shmediction. It's a DEMONSTRABLE CERTAINTY, period.

This argument is about opinions vs. facts, i.e. subjective statements being confused with objective ones, and unsupported claims with supported claims.

Whether we're talking about facts of history, of current world events, or of how the universe works at all times, doesn't matter an iota here.



Factual statements can be less, or more certain. If they're uncertain enough, they're called "opinions". If they're pretty damn certain, they're called "facts".
Predictions can be less, or more certain. If uncertain enough, they're called opinions. If they're pretty damn certain... how are they called?

Is it "facts"? Or something else? Maybe just "certain prediction"?

I honestly don't know, because I've always thought that certain predictions  were called "facts", too.
Not the predictions themselves, but the FACT that if you do something under given circumstances, something WILL happen, as a universal law.

At any rate, I don't see how this has to do with the "topic".

But the question at hand was your misuse of the term fact, which you resist admitting to by calling me out for being "intellectual."

I said "intellectual masturbation", which isn't the same thing.
There's a difference between "intellectual" and "smartass" - the former understands what needs to be said, the latter randomly spews out smart things they know that have nothing to do with the topic at hand, like that a pen would only fall if there's gravity.

All you really contributed was that there's a difference between a factual circumstance and a prediction (which has nothing to do with anything here), and that some particular thing I called a certainty, is maybe just a little bit less certain.

Ok... so what? There are things that are more certain than dying from falling from the 10th floor. Like burning in the atmosphere if you fall naked from a lot higher. There are things less certain, like getting infection from a wound.

When you've reached a low enough level of certainy, you've got "opinion". Which was my point to begin with.

So the possibilities are not mentioned that would prove your statement false, so they're assumed to not be there, so that you can be correct.

What? No.... no... Jesus, no.

Here again for the slow ones:
Everyday life: "If you do X, you'll cause Y to happen. (Thinking: Now technically it may not happen if Z or Z1 happens, but that's preposterous, and what the hell, we're not some fucking nerds.)"
Precise nerd language: "If you do X, you'll cause Y, unless Z Z1 Z2 Z3 Z4, all of which together would have the probability of 0.1%. We have to mention it aloud, because we're precise nerds."

At the end of the day, when you strip away all the whens and buts, you've still got... A CERTAIN PREDICTION, about a FACT that WILL happen if you cause another FACT to happen.
Or is it event, not fact?


...


Tell me, how big is the possibility that, if I hold an Oxford dictionary in my hand, at home, with closed windows, and let it go, and it starts falling to the ground, and no one catches it.. it won't fall on the floor?
How big is the possibility that some well-documented fact you know from the media, or friends, or papers, is actually 50% inaccurate, or completely false, due to some elaborated hoax? Is it non-existent? No, but how big?

So if you argue against me calling the former a fact, because it's not certain enough, then how many "facts" can you really call "facts"?
The puppy is black. But maybe your brain is hallucinating, and it's actually pink, and everyone else says it's pink, but your brain hears black?

So seems like nothing is a fact after all, eh?
So what is it then? Opinion? Hell no. How about I say "almost fact", and we just treat it as a fact?

 

That a pencil will fall to the ground when you drop it is a prediction based on that fact, but not a fact itself.

If it's a fact that the universe works in a way that will make the pencil drop (account for both gravity, and all other factors that may prevent it from falling, whatever they may be), then it's a fact that it will drop.

Having that, I'll gladly give you the distinction between prediction and fact.
This discussion is still about degrees of certainty vs. subjective mental states, not this.

___________________________

So you admit you have no knowledge of the basis for this discussion after being involved in it for a couple pages.

Wow, the irony in that is just hair-raising...

Yea, and you know why? Because, as you can surely notice if you look back at page 4, I DIDN'T START IT.
Red5 and a couple others started ACCUSING ME of confusing facts with opinions, without providing a single actual example, or even defining what kind of "opinion" they mean (and in order to do that, you first need to understand that there can be different kinds).

Please do yourself a fucking favor, and look up "burden of proof".
I'm not the one who's supposed to "know" what others are trying to convey. They are.

In reality it's a matter of the apparent futility of arguing with you when you admit you have no idea what the basis of discussion is

Lol.

It's all a bunch of sophist (said it again) nonsense.

Pointing out how it wouldn't drop in space without gravity, is sophist nonsense.

claiming ignorance of the basis of the argument

Let's be clear here, the basis of the argument is that so far, I seem to be the only one who understands that opinion doesn't just mean taste.

I've never claimed ignorance of that, all I said was that I don't know where I committed the crime, because no one told me yet.

I said it because I believe that you hold that view. So it was a perspicacious observation

Yes, with the clear implication that this view was inaccurate. The irony was in the fact that actually, it was accurate :P
OR IS IT???

But hey, enough of that already.

Can we just pin this down to the core?
"Opinion":
1. A factual statement not sufficiently supported by evidence and/or logic. OR:
2. A statement about a subjective mental state. Often dressed as a claim about the external world (i.e. this sunset IS beautiful), but what really happens is that the person's BRAIN finds it beautiful.

One word, two completely different meanings.
Same in German and Russian.

So how can we agree on that, please? Or would you argue that?

Thanks.

Ziggy Stardust said:

The OT.com "I suck" Hall of Fame

kenkraly2007

haljordan28

skyjedi2005

twoffour

Janskeet

luke.the.darkside.is.fun.

adamwankenobi

Zigfried

Does that pretty much cover it?

How the hell is that?

So thanks, you're equating me with complete master trolls like "Janskeet" who've been trolling this forum with changing identities for months.

And then there's skyjedi, who just tends to be repetitive about his distaste for Lucas and the prequels, but is pretty much an okay fellow.

The only thing that sucks here is your stupid list, and so does your face.

Oh... Jesus... fuck.

I probably could edit out many chunks out of that last one, but I'm not gonna bother now.

FUck.

CP3S said:

twooffour said:

RedFive said:

Is anyone still reading all of his long posts?

What do you mean, "still"?

LOL. He doesn't think anyone has ever been reading his posts, but he still keeps writing them.

Well, that has its own advantages.

It means I can always say with a straight face that I've done that, been there, and always have a post to link to if necessary ;)

You see, if I weren't writing them, any miscommunication would be my fault :p

Alright, here's the thing, lads:

When I try to figure out what exactly this whole argument is about, here's the answers I can come up with:
-who's the bigger douche
-who's posted some douche post in some post
-who thinks they're right, or smart, or whatever.

I'd say enough with this crap.



I'm gonna boil this down to these few things, nothing else will be answered (probably):

-Facts vs. Opinions - anyone who still wants to claim I've committed some crime in the direction, feel welcome to cite, or link to, at least one example.

-If someone wants to argue about definitions of "opinion" or whatever, about how untouchable/falsifiable/justifiable opinions can or cannot be, please address this skeletor part:

Can we just pin this down to the core?
"Opinion":
1. A factual statement not sufficiently supported by evidence and/or logic. OR:
2. A statement about a subjective mental state. Often dressed as a claim about the external world (i.e. this sunset IS beautiful), but what really happens is that the person's BRAIN finds it beautiful.

One word, two completely different meanings.
Same in German and Russian.

So how can we agree on that, please? Or would you argue that?



-Mrebo can inform me whether a "certain prediction" can be called a "fact", if he wants.

-If someone wants to share their personal philosophy about internet arguments, like when you can say that someone is "winning", or "right", and vice versa (especially if it has nothing to do with backing up one's god damn position - let's hear some of that), whatever, feel free.




I doubt anything new or remotely interesting can ever come out of this, but everything else will be just ignored from the get go.

Or even better, how about something on-topic.



Thanks.

"a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty"
"a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge"

The problem is the vagueness.
These definitions do a good job of describing what qualifies to be called an "opinion", basically summing up the two notions I was talking about in one convenient package.


Subjective opinion, or taste

A basic aesthetic appraisal of something, like a sunset (hate to use clichés here, but who cares) being "beautiful", is not founded on proof or certainty.
But it also isn't founded on ANY kind of rational or logical considerations at all - neither does it actually make any factual statement about the object in question.
It makes a statement about the mental state in reaction to the object.

The sunset isn't beautiful - the observer's brain perceives it as beautiful. If there's any objective ambition in a statement like "this sunset IS beautiful", it really means "it will appear beautiful to others, too, because we all share similar brains".

An aesthetic judgment of some complex art work, may involve all kinds of rational thought, determining which elements work together in what way in order to create some aesthetic effect, if you look at it one way or the other, etc.
But it'll still be founded on aesthetic perception, i.e. a subjective mental state.



Factual opinion (not an official term, just something I thought fits)

Now, some kind of "this country is going to the dogs, and here's apparently why", is also a "judgement not founded on proof or certainty".
But it actually TRIES to make a claim about supposed facts. The facts ARE out there (unlike the beauty of the sunset, which is all in the mind), but impossible to determine with "proof and certainy", so you go by what you have.

Should proof and certainty for this opinion crop up, it'll become factual knowledge.
Should some appear that debunk it, it'll CHANGE and become factual knowledge then.

This type of opinion is an attempt to approach factual knowledge. Which means, it can be more accurate, or less accurate, than another.
If your judgement is based on faulty logic, it can be debunked, or attacked.
If the logic is so awful beyond remedy, this opinion can be simply indisputably wrong.



For the other, no proof will, or can ever crop up. And neither can any logic begin to rebuke it. There is nothing to prove, or debunk - it's a first-person observation about one's own mental state, and nothing else.



Confusing subjective opinion with factual opinion

So if you find a sunset beautiful, but insist that it actually IS beautiful, and it's not just you and some other people... you confuse your mental state with fact, or factual opinion.
If you have some political views about something, but get overly defensive about people criticizing it, saying "it's just an opinion, and I have a right"... you confuse your judgment of actual facts, with a subjective sentiment.


Opinions themselves as facts

The fact that a given person has an opinion of any kind, is a fact in itself.

However, the subjective opinion, is an observation of this "fact" itself. It is based on the KNOWLEDGE of one's own mind.
(Paradoxically, it can also be an opinion of it, as what one thinks of one's one emotions, or views, isn't necessarily complete, or accurate - but that's waay to out there right now.)
The factual opinion may be phrased as an observation about this "fact", like "I think that X", but its CONTENT still refers to some given external circumstance that exist independently of the observer.

Another way to break it down:
Knowledge vs. Value

If we say that there are two basic departments in our mind in relation to the world:
-Knowledge - dedicated to creating an image of the external world inside the mind. Can be directly compared to the external world.
-Values - dedicated to deciding what is "good" or "bad", what is "right" (not "correct"), and what "ought" to be. Is one's personal relation to the external world.
(There's also the department that can create imaginary scenarios, but that plays its function in both of those.)

... then the subjective opinion would be a value statement, as in "I value this sunset for its beauty", or "I value this funny face for its hilarity", and the factual would be in the first department.




Fun with Words

So what exactly am I supposed to take from a description like this:
not necessarily based on fact or knowledge

So if it MAY be based on fact and knowledge, it wouldn't be an opinion anymore, would it?
Or is it really BASED on knowing certain facts, but is an opinion by the virtue of putting them in an unprovable construct?

Well, in one case, the "fact" would be one's own value / mental state, in the other, it would be an external circumstance that may or may not correspond.

However, in the first case, there is no external fact at all, so it's not based on it?


It's as comprehensive a definition, as it's almost useless.

All three of these are saying the same thing, the statement may be factual, but there isn't sufficient evidence to support it (thus it isn't founded on proof or certainty, or in other words, it isn't necessarily based on fact or knowledge).
Or in your second definition it is a "subjective mental state", which again is saying nothing contrary to or different from "a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty" or "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge"

Both your definitions are encompassed under the single definition from the first two sources.

The only other meaning of the word "opinion" would be in the sense of "legal opinion" or "medical opinion" etc., but you never claimed those meanings as your reason for being so confused about what meaning of the word we were trying to use.

;)

The 3rd one is more of a sub-group of 1., though, if you think about it.
A medical opinion is aimed at facts, but obviously hasn't quit gotten there (you won't have to ask a pysicist for a second opinion on the speed of light, for instance).

Though, I guess, there may also be some value judgements involved, concerning ethical considerations, or what alternative would be "better" for a client, etc. - but I don't know that much about those areas :)