Are Opinions able to wrong? Or are they only subjective and interpretive based, not factual?

Asking this as there was a debate I saw where a person stated that opinions can be wrong and proven illogical, while the other stated that they're entirely subjective and interpretive.

In literal terms, opinions are subjective, but that isn't going to stop me from calling someone insane if, for example, they say Batman and Robin is as good as The Dark Knight.

An opinion that can be proven wrong isn't an opinion so much as an untrue statement. Opinions are subjective though they often may rely on or be based on untrustworthy info.

It is only an opinion if there is an appreciable degree of subjectivity attached to it. I think the sky is pretty is an opinion. I think the sky is orange is an incorrect statement.

As what the people above me have already stated, an opinion is subjective. They differ from person to person. While some people may not like the opinion said to them, an example being I said I like Ren Amamiya more then Akira Kurusu and a whole lot of people on the discord server didn't like that. However, it was my opinion.

Saying that an opinion can be debated, be wrong, and proven illogical is another way to say "I'm going to force my opinion down your throat." Opinion can be not good, for example saying they like the Holocaust when the Holocaust did a lot of bad things. The opinion is their opinion, but not a very good opinion.

I honestly don't see that here, I have seen this a few time on a Discord server I'm apart of.

An opinion, by its very nature, can never be wrong, nor right. It is literally a subjective (not objective) expression based on a person's perspectives and interpretations, among other factors. To that end, an opinion can indeed be biased, discriminatory, prejudiced, etc., but that's more or less the extent.

However, the contents of that opinion can have objectively wrong information in it. Those two things (the opinion and its contents), while obviously linked, are separate issues. The content can be right or wrong, the opinion itself cannot be either.

Opinions can be wrong. Someone can say it's their opinion that vaccines cause autism, they're wrong, simple.

Opinions can be like asshole...everyone has one, but most of them stink.

If you're opinion is based on misinformation or bias, then yes.

In itself, opinions are subjective.

But it is annoying that people say something completely stupid or illogical and to defend themselves, they say. "Well, it's my opinion"

I mean, an opinion is not a fact, and shouldn't end up becoming propaganda in that way.

Opinions are subjective yes, but most people don't even know what an opinion is nowadays and form opinions against facts.

And even then no one is entitled to having an opinion. People are only entitled to having an informed opinion.

If someone had an uninformed opinion they shouldn't try to force it on me like a lot of people are trying nowadays.

In real life some opinions are right some are wrong

Here in CV every guy is wrong regarding comic book characters

Yes. And I'll never forget the time a guy told me Toneri > Adult Sasuke. No. Nonononono

Yep

Anyone who disagrees with me is clearly wrong by default.

Opinions are weird, someone could say they think Dogs and snakes look alike. Are they wrong in their opinion?..... Yes but again they are subjective

by debate you mean vs battles shit and which movie is better???

then it's definitely subjective.

someone might like let's say Hobbit trilogy but despises LotR trilogy.

people would call him crazy and that his opinion is wrong but he simply has different taste which results in different opinion.

You can understand your question better, if you separate a statement that is an opinion from a statement that is a lie; going even further, is someone being genuine or disingenuous in their comment?

Thus, taking this approach, science can be an opinion, based on, after educated debate, the person emerges with a genuine or disingenuous comment.

Also, consider a statement by a woman, when she says something like her husband is the best man in the world (e.g. giving her the benefit of the doubt that she's not actually being disingenuous in her verbal expression) or she has/had the best father that anyone could ever have had; or a man saying that he has the most beautiful woman as his wife; to these individuals, their statements are genuinely made, but someone else would consider them opinions; but, to these individuals, they are fact based statements.

thus, there exist only opinions, lies, facts, which are still basically opinions, and the truth that comes from the Bible and Christianity; in other contexts, an opinion that is genuine is what the world outside of Christianity calls another type truth or facts, which is approximately the truth; Biblical truth is absolute and isn't subject to testing in such a way that it can be changed, as an error was discovered, as with science; facts are subject to change, depending on new advancements in science and technology; the statements of the Bible have been tested in various ways and have always remained true, as described by the Bible; hence, entitled to be the truth.

However, if you state an opinion, but you're being disingenuous, obviously, you're lying; this would be someone who is a scientists who has had an educated debated with a Christian scientist (that is, the right Christian scientists who's statements were actually able to strike a chord within that person), but emerge expressing the same opinion; a possible motive: usually, trying to save face; while he may say that such isn't the case, within himself, that is the case.

Opinions are always wrong.

@metaljimmor: exactly

At the root, opinions are largely subjective. However, an opinion is based on the interpretation of events. Interpretations can be questioned.

Depends on whether the opinions is based off facts and sound reasoning. It is my opinion that 2+2 is 4. If you can give actual reasons to substantiate your opinion, your opinion is valid. Hence the phrase "expert opinion".

However, if you try to be a special cupcake and say that your views are valid for no other reason than the fact that it is your opinion....well, then your education has failed you.

No, I meant two dudes on DA getting into a debate about how opinions can be wrong and proven illogical after some other dude said they liked Greek Kratos more than Norse Kratos.

Depends whether you are talking about facts or things that simply require one's own personal perspective and opinion, or subjective view. For example, what movie is better. Anyone can enjoy and find/see his own thing in a movie. You can't blame someone for preferring Titanic over Godfather. It can just be a better story for them. There is no right or wrong here. On the other hand, you have facts that are just the way they are and do not require one's own perspective. One can have an opinion that contradicts them, but that opinion is simply wrong. An example, saying that the gap between Superman's speed and Flash's speed is not massive is wrong no matter how you look at it.

Also, bump.

There's a degree of objectivity to saying a movie is "better" then another movie. Like, it's subjective to how much you enjoyed a movie, but objectively TDK is a better form of art then The Last Knight

Opinions are shields.

When someone doesn't want to be criticized,they say"it's just my opinion."

@majinblackheart: That's actually very untrue; biases and prejudice do not inherently make the content of an opinion false (again, an opinion is a subjective expression; it literally cannot be wrong or right).

For example, let's say someone claimed that authoritarianism is bad and dangerous, and leave out the content of the opinion (in other words, not examining whether or not the information is accurate) for now. As an opinion, that stance is neither right nor wrong; however it is very, very likely stemming from a biased perspective, whether or not you think it is accurate (if you grew up in a Western nation, or a nation with heavy or predominantly Western values, this is likely to be something extremely obvious).

Next, examine the content of the opinion; many find authoritarianism bad and dangerous based on their values and views of rights, liberties and accountability, and how an authoritarian figure can circumvent them. Again, if you ask someone from a Western/Western-influenced country, they would likely find the content of the opinion to be an accurate assessment. However, that would not, and does not, change the fact that it is born out of a prejudice against that form of governing.

TL;DR, a prejudiced or biased opinion may be based on accurate (and more importantly to the given individual, relevent) information.

@reactor: I see what you are saying, but don't see how what I say is "very untrue" when you say "a prejudiced or biased opinion may bebased on accurate information." You're just saying that there are cases where bias might be true, but the rest of the time they aren't. For all of those, their opinion is wrong.

@majinblackheart: No, I'm not saying biases are factual or non-factual; just that they can often be present.

I mean, you could substitute almost any subjective matter in there, and you'd get the same result. Human rights are another example of this.

The entire concept of human rights are based on the prejudice that all people should innately have a particular set of social, civil and political rights entitled to them. In the strictest sense, it's a bias based on an ethical (usually founded politically or socioculturally) viewpoint.

A bias cannot be true or untrue, it's basically just the double-sided coin of favoritism and discrimination. In that regard, it's very similar to an opinion in that they can often be considered "good" or "bad", but not "right" or "wrong", because like opinions, cognitive biases are subjective (contrast with objective; something that can definitively be quantified as being factually correct or incorrect).

But this is kind of a rabbit hole; my point in all this was many of the common "truths" we accept are actually just biases accepted by massive enough populations (and usually over a long enough period that coalesces into said populations) that it becomes indoctrinated on the cultural level of a society.

Fair trial and due process, political ideologies, moral values and guiding ethics in the sciences, and the list can go on and on. They are all based on preconceived notions that some things are right and some are wrong. In this particular case, they're basically opinions that politically (or other manners of soft power) or militarily-powerful enough institutions got behind and could enforce across the spectrum.

But I'm kinda rambling now; what I'm trying to say is that while there can be facts behind an opinion or biases creating an opinion, the opinion itself is a subjective expression. You can disagree with it, call it stupid or flawed or crazy, or even illogical, but they cannot be right or wrong.

There is no such thing as a right opinion, or a wrong one

Yes they can be, on resolved issues. If someone says that in their opinion the Earth is flat, that's a wrong opinion because it's objectively false.

A true opinion, ie "Chocolate cake is the best cake" or "The Dark Knight is the best movie" can't be proven or disproven, those are subjective. That doesn't mean we can't argue or debate on them, we absolutely can, we just have to acknowledge the fact that we can't definitively prove right or wrong.

However, certain opinions ie "Vaccines cause autism" or "The Earth is flat" can absolutely be disproven. However, that's a whole different debate on what an opinion really is.

Opinions can be wrong when contradicted by objective knowledge. When they cannot be contradicted then they are merely a personal or subjective truth (or lie).

It's important to remember though that opinions that are factually contradicted now, can in some cases be proven objectively correct in the future.

Also many truths or facts are a matter of perspective and context, and what seems like a fact can actually be an opinion. Take the example of the opinion of the sky being orange, animals (or colour blind humans) can perceive the light spectrum in different ways, so to them the sky may be orange, and that is still an objective fact in that context. Also the sky can indeed be partly orange anyway at sunset.

Or if we flip this example on it's head, stating the "fact" that "the sky is blue" is actually an opinion that can be objectively disproved. A factual statement would be more along the likes of "during the day the sky on the planet Earth is predominately perceived as a shade of blue by the majority of homo-sapiens."

Only when they aren't mine.

@reactor: It's my opinion that opinions can be wrong. Checkmate. :P

Facts are everything.

Facts are opinions in disguise