Imagine two people engaged in a zero-sum game. If A wins, B loses, and vice versa, and to the rest of the world there’s no significant difference. There’s no *knowable* objective best outcome that anyone can agree on, but to each person subjectively, with their subjective values of putting themselves and their kin and kind first, it’s pretty clear which outcome each thinks is better.
Sure, those propositions are based in facts about each person, but there’s a fundamental subjective difference that can’t be resolved through just getting more facts.
And differences like that are in the air we all have to breathe and the water we drink, so that even an ocean of uncontroversial fact will be colored by a tiny trickle of truly conflicting interest. As a consequence, priorities will be pushed around, all the way up, into the most trivial aspects of daily life.
It certainly doesn’t help that all people are at least partially wrong all the time – and colloquially, that’s part of what we typically call “opinion”. But when I talk about opinions, the strong version of what I mean is ideas shaped by such differing interests.
Doesn’t that introduce the distinction between facts and opinions?
There's two things going on here. One is the idea that our background beliefs affect which conclusions we draw. This isn't just confined to a few areas having to do with self interest. It applies to literally everything. (To illustrate: when you see a cat on the mat, you believe that there's a cat on the mat. But when Neo has the same experience in the Matrix, he doesn't believe he's seeing a cat on the mat because he's got very different beliefs about the causes of his experiences. He believes he's seeing computer code.) So our background beliefs affect what we believe and what it makes sense for us to believe. But in all events, our beliefs concern matters of fact. They're either true or they're not.
The other issue is about self interest. I prefer an outcome that favors me, you prefer an outcome that favors you. So you think that one outcome is better, I think the other outcome is better. A difference in opinion? Not really! I think one outcome is better for me and worse for you, and the other outcome is worse for me and better for you. You think the same thing. So there's no disagreement. There's only disagreement if I think the thing that is better for me is Just Plain Better and you think the thing that is better for you is Just Plain Better. Then we do have a genuine difference in opinion. But we can't both be right. Only one of us can be, and maybe we're both wrong (because there's no such thing as being Just Plain Better), for instance.
Does that help? I'm happy to clarify more if you're still confused or unconvinced.
Neo and I can both be correct about our background beliefs, and still disagree on cat issues, because neither of us can know everything that is true about the cat. (Or, rather, I don’t know how omniscient Neo is. But if we replace Neo with Richard Feynman, who sees a cloud of atoms where I see a pet, we have essentially the same point.)
On the second, I’m not sure. Our difference may be more semantic than anything else.
I believe I see your point. I have no problem accepting that various facts are at the basis of all opinions, but I think philosophers using this to deny that there’s a difference between facts and opinions is a bit like pointing to Neo’s code or Feynman’s atoms and claiming that there is no cat. Like cats and stories and pasta bolognese and most other words in our language and things in the universe, opinions are real things that emerge from context.
It feels a bit like philosophical Humpty Dumptyism (thanks for that term 😉) along the lines of compatibilism (i.e. “we have free will, it just doesn’t mean what you think it means”) or Lawrence Krauss’ “nothing” (i.e. “I can explain how the universe came from nothing, but ‘nothing’ doesn’t mean what you think it does”). “Opinions don’t really exist, because ‘opinion’ doesn’t mean what you think it means” falls into the same class for me.
Now, I guess there must be people to whom “opinion” means something other than what it means to me, but I struggle to wrap my head around what they think it is.
I'm not denying that there's a difference between facts and opinions, I'm denying that there's a difference between "fact claims" and "opinion claims." Opinions are mental states that are ABOUT factual claims. It doesn't make sense to have an opinion about something which is not a factual claim.
Here's maybe a sharper way to state my concern. Suppose someone were to say "London is the capital of France," and they're then criticized, "That's wrong, that's crazy," but they respond "But that's my OPINION. It's my opinion that London is the capital of France." Now that's true - that is their opinion - but that's not a good defense. Their opinion is wrong and crazy.
Yet many people think that there are a class of claims - "opinion claims" - that can't be criticized because it's a kind of category mistake to say that an opinion claim can be wrong or irrational. That's what I'm arguing against.
Yes: Despite what people often say, opinions *can* simply be wrong, because opinions are based of facts. You can’t opine yourself out of a fact.
I think the way I first read you, I got the impression you didn’t think “opinion” was a useful class of things at all, but more of an illusion. A bit like saying:
All claims about biology are claims about physics, therefore we should stop pretending biology is real, and just discuss physics.
But what I now understand you saying is something closer to:
All claims about biology are claims about physics, therefore you can’t just make claims about biology that violate the laws of physics.
Your point seems obviously true to me, but I guess I can imagine that others don’t see it that way.
I’m not disagreeing, but am curious...
Imagine two people engaged in a zero-sum game. If A wins, B loses, and vice versa, and to the rest of the world there’s no significant difference. There’s no *knowable* objective best outcome that anyone can agree on, but to each person subjectively, with their subjective values of putting themselves and their kin and kind first, it’s pretty clear which outcome each thinks is better.
Sure, those propositions are based in facts about each person, but there’s a fundamental subjective difference that can’t be resolved through just getting more facts.
And differences like that are in the air we all have to breathe and the water we drink, so that even an ocean of uncontroversial fact will be colored by a tiny trickle of truly conflicting interest. As a consequence, priorities will be pushed around, all the way up, into the most trivial aspects of daily life.
It certainly doesn’t help that all people are at least partially wrong all the time – and colloquially, that’s part of what we typically call “opinion”. But when I talk about opinions, the strong version of what I mean is ideas shaped by such differing interests.
Doesn’t that introduce the distinction between facts and opinions?
There's two things going on here. One is the idea that our background beliefs affect which conclusions we draw. This isn't just confined to a few areas having to do with self interest. It applies to literally everything. (To illustrate: when you see a cat on the mat, you believe that there's a cat on the mat. But when Neo has the same experience in the Matrix, he doesn't believe he's seeing a cat on the mat because he's got very different beliefs about the causes of his experiences. He believes he's seeing computer code.) So our background beliefs affect what we believe and what it makes sense for us to believe. But in all events, our beliefs concern matters of fact. They're either true or they're not.
The other issue is about self interest. I prefer an outcome that favors me, you prefer an outcome that favors you. So you think that one outcome is better, I think the other outcome is better. A difference in opinion? Not really! I think one outcome is better for me and worse for you, and the other outcome is worse for me and better for you. You think the same thing. So there's no disagreement. There's only disagreement if I think the thing that is better for me is Just Plain Better and you think the thing that is better for you is Just Plain Better. Then we do have a genuine difference in opinion. But we can't both be right. Only one of us can be, and maybe we're both wrong (because there's no such thing as being Just Plain Better), for instance.
Does that help? I'm happy to clarify more if you're still confused or unconvinced.
I don’t think we disagree on the first point.
Neo and I can both be correct about our background beliefs, and still disagree on cat issues, because neither of us can know everything that is true about the cat. (Or, rather, I don’t know how omniscient Neo is. But if we replace Neo with Richard Feynman, who sees a cloud of atoms where I see a pet, we have essentially the same point.)
On the second, I’m not sure. Our difference may be more semantic than anything else.
I believe I see your point. I have no problem accepting that various facts are at the basis of all opinions, but I think philosophers using this to deny that there’s a difference between facts and opinions is a bit like pointing to Neo’s code or Feynman’s atoms and claiming that there is no cat. Like cats and stories and pasta bolognese and most other words in our language and things in the universe, opinions are real things that emerge from context.
It feels a bit like philosophical Humpty Dumptyism (thanks for that term 😉) along the lines of compatibilism (i.e. “we have free will, it just doesn’t mean what you think it means”) or Lawrence Krauss’ “nothing” (i.e. “I can explain how the universe came from nothing, but ‘nothing’ doesn’t mean what you think it does”). “Opinions don’t really exist, because ‘opinion’ doesn’t mean what you think it means” falls into the same class for me.
Now, I guess there must be people to whom “opinion” means something other than what it means to me, but I struggle to wrap my head around what they think it is.
I'm not denying that there's a difference between facts and opinions, I'm denying that there's a difference between "fact claims" and "opinion claims." Opinions are mental states that are ABOUT factual claims. It doesn't make sense to have an opinion about something which is not a factual claim.
Here's maybe a sharper way to state my concern. Suppose someone were to say "London is the capital of France," and they're then criticized, "That's wrong, that's crazy," but they respond "But that's my OPINION. It's my opinion that London is the capital of France." Now that's true - that is their opinion - but that's not a good defense. Their opinion is wrong and crazy.
Yet many people think that there are a class of claims - "opinion claims" - that can't be criticized because it's a kind of category mistake to say that an opinion claim can be wrong or irrational. That's what I'm arguing against.
We agree then.
Yes: Despite what people often say, opinions *can* simply be wrong, because opinions are based of facts. You can’t opine yourself out of a fact.
I think the way I first read you, I got the impression you didn’t think “opinion” was a useful class of things at all, but more of an illusion. A bit like saying:
All claims about biology are claims about physics, therefore we should stop pretending biology is real, and just discuss physics.
But what I now understand you saying is something closer to:
All claims about biology are claims about physics, therefore you can’t just make claims about biology that violate the laws of physics.
Your point seems obviously true to me, but I guess I can imagine that others don’t see it that way.
I’m glad I asked, though. Thanks for clarifying.