twooffour said:
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?
Yes, it could be based on fact or knowledge, but it isn't necessarily. I think it describes that quite clearly in the definition.
An atheist could say based on all his scientific knowledge, he is certain there is no God. But he can't prove this, so the non-existence of God is still his opinion on the matter. If somehow he can disprove the existence of God with complete certainty, then yes, now it would cease to be an opinion and become fact.
This scenario doesn't contradict your dictionary.com definitions, nor Red Five's chart, nor my Oxford English Dictionary's definition.
I can say Micheal Jordan is the greatest basketball player of all time, but until I provide scores and statistic encompassing the entire history of basketball and show indisputable evidence that he is was, indeed, the greatest of all time, that will just have to remain my opinion. Evidence exists to prove that Micheal Jordan was, in fact, a really fantastic player, so my opinion is based on plenty of factual data, but just not enough data to prove he was the best who ever played.
I could also make the claim that my girlfriend's cat is the cutest thing ever to exist. This opinion is of course purely subjective and has no potential to ever become indisputable fact.
The same rule apply to all three of these scenarios I listed, they all fit just fine within The Oxford English Dictionary's brief definition. The only difference is, two of them, having a basis in facts, could potentially be one day proven as facts (though very unlikely), at which point they'd cease to be opinion (though you could still hold opinions about those subjects).
It is really hard to tell exactly what you are trying to argue, because your posts are often unnecessarily long and typically full of a bunch of attempts at biting sarcasm and other baggage that gets in the way and makes your points hard to follow. However, I must say your last post was quite impressive and very well written and I actually enjoyed reading it, when you are not trying to be biting or condescending your points come through much clearer. Basically, what I think what you are getting at is that one can hold opinions about facts, and/or that one can hold opinions that also happen to be facts. If that is the case, then I agree.