The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

zombietactics · February 9, 2015, 05:59 PM

I think you are confused about the notion of having a right to an opinion, vs. whether or not an opinion is valid.

Your assertion that an "opinion" can be wrong yet still "valid" defies the definitions of the words themselves.

People are welcome to their own personal opinions, but not their own personal facts.

When I say that not everything is a matter of opinion, I'm not saying anything at all about anyone's right (or right to opine) absolute nonsense. They retain that right regardless of whether they are spitting gibberish or imparting wisdom.

It simply means that there is a distinction between facts and opinions. That's a prime distinction necessary to even discuss the two concepts coherently.

Facts are not subject to who holds to them, they remain regardless of anyone's opinion or the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Facts are what remain regardless of one's belief, or lack thereof.

If you "know" something because of "who is correct", you really don't know much. C.S. Lewis (and many others) demonstrated quite clearly how an "appeal to who" is really just a statement about who you like, and not much more.

If you "know" something, and can demonstrate it experimentally or logically, absent appeal to someone else's rank, social status, credentials or personality ... you know something indeed.

February 9, 2015, 05:59 PM	#47
zombietactics Senior Member Join Date: August 7, 2012 Location: Northern California Posts: 447	I think you are confused about the notion of having a right to an opinion, vs. whether or not an opinion is valid. Your assertion that an "opinion" can be wrong yet still "valid" defies the definitions of the words themselves. People are welcome to their own personal opinions, but not their own personal facts. When I say that not everything is a matter of opinion, I'm not saying anything at all about anyone's right (or right to opine) absolute nonsense. They retain that right regardless of whether they are spitting gibberish or imparting wisdom. It simply means that there is a distinction between facts and opinions. That's a prime distinction necessary to even discuss the two concepts coherently. Facts are not subject to who holds to them, they remain regardless of anyone's opinion or the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. Facts are what remain regardless of one's belief, or lack thereof. If you "know" something because of "who is correct", you really don't know much. C.S. Lewis (and many others) demonstrated quite clearly how an "appeal to who" is really just a statement about who you like, and not much more. If you "know" something, and can demonstrate it experimentally or logically, absent appeal to someone else's rank, social status, credentials or personality ... you know something indeed. __________________ __________________ NRA Certified Instructor • NRA Certified RSO • Certified Glock Armorer Last edited by zombietactics; February 9, 2015 at 06:05 PM.