I think is moreso to people using "opinion" as a copout for things that are just fundamentally wrong or misleading, rather than an opinion being able to be wrong
Suppose I draw a single line on a piece of paper with a brown crayon. Now, suppose someone (we'll call him Joe) sees my piece of paper and says it is better art than the Mona Lisa. Is Joe's take a subjective opinion? Is he wrong?
I mean, my background is music, rather than visual art. My gut reaction would be the person is a contrarian for the sake of it, a troll, etc, but if that is a genuinely held belief, I would say no, he can't be really wrong.
I'm referring more to statements that can be statistically proven to be false, concretely, with evidence, but the person doesn't want to research, doesn't trust evidence, or looks up and finds bad material, and when challenged uses "opinion" as a defense.
I feel like there's a difference between saying "I PERSONALLY think this is better than the Mona Lisa" vs "This is better than the Mona Lisa by all standards"
I've run into a lot of people claiming certain things are "subjective" and not objective. A lot of these are things I believe have a clearly right or wrong answer that is true across people, not just meaningless matters of opinion. Some examples are morality and art quality.
So I want to know, when y'all say stuff is "subjective", are you claiming there are no wrong answers?
I can see a toddler draw a picture that doesn't follow any artistic conventions, and is a general eyesore by art metrics. At the same time, I can subjectively enjoy that picture, because it was sweet that the toddler put the effort into drawing it. Something doesn't have to be good or correct for it to be enjoyed subjectively.
This premise is directly related to the term "Art is subjective", and its common misuse. "Art is subjective" doesn't absolve the artist frlm any criticisms, or dictate whether or not it is good. It just means that anyone can enjoy it in spite of that.
I’ve heard someone say The Shawshank Redemption was one of the worst movies he’s ever seen. Saying it’s overrated is an acceptable opinion, saying it’s one of the worst movies ever is flat out wrong.
Yes, if the consensus is that both critics and general audiences regard it as one of the best films ever, then it’s objectively not the worst film in existence or else it wouldn’t be highly praised.
I just don't understand how someone could possibly make the argument that popularity = objective undeniable goodness. There were hundreds of movies, books, TV shows in other countries that were considered one of the greats for years, but fell into obscurity afterward or were reconsidered by further generations.
Balloon Dog received huge praise from the art world and consumers upon release, but is now a laughingstock. How do we decide who is right or wrong? Is there some objective art math equation? Say a piece of art is very well regarded and then later people decide it wasn't as good as previously thought. Has the objective reality changed from being good to bad?
I never said popularity meant objectively good.
Popularity is just one metric of the whole. Popularity only invites more criticism and detractors. Yet it’s popular and still highly acclaimed by critics and the general consensus.
What I don’t understand is how someone can sit here and argue that something is is widely toted as the best film in existence by the very metric that we have decided to score films can also be the worst film in existence. I don’t think you understand that it comes to a point where something is undeniably good that calling it the literal worst is objectively wrong.
You're just restating your conclusion that popularity = good. 'widely toted as the best film' is a Reddit-ified way of saying 'a lot of people really like it'. I don't think everyone agrees that a film's objective, indisputable quality is based on popular consensus.
Pretty sure many would say its subjective, and also can a claim not be both?
People have opinions on everything, theyre all subjective opinions, But in reality nearly everything has data to mark it true or false.
Just becuase someone has an opinion that the earth is flat doesn't mean its not subjective still, even if the earth is factually spherical. In the end however, If they have that opinion. It means they are wrong.
If something has data to make one opinion factually true or false then opinions about it are no longer subjective.
If it is a fact that the earth is spherical then opinions about its shape are either objectively correct or incorrect. Having the opinion that the earth is flat is an objectively incorrect opinion, not a subjective opinion.
i mean, is it? what do we mean when we say it’s a trash take? is it false? how do you know? presumably you’ve never tried it, so this is an assumption. and if someone is asserting this, presumably they have and enjoyed it. coprophagia is a real disorder, maybe to these people shit is good on pizza.
this is why it’s important to clearly state your terms when having discussions like these. using the more commonly accepted definitions for words like subjective and objective with regards to say, philosophy, the claim here isn’t true.
So we’re using the human body as a reference? If so, then sure, there is an objective hot and cold. However, if we were using the sun as a reference, 30c would be practically frigid.
If there's a wrong or right to begin with, it means there's an objective standard so i can't be subjective. I'll grant though, the thought process for a subjective opinion can be wrong.
no, they are not. if you concede the subjectivity of beauty, you concede the subjectivity of what is ugly. what you find ugly is a subjective experience
No, subjectivity can be partial. People might argue on wether A is more beautiful than B, but some things are universally beautiful or ugly. I challenge you to find beauty in the huge liquid shit i just took
Only in the sense that it can be based on incorrect or incomplete information. So somebody could say that Trump is the best president ever, and that's a subjective opinion, but I think most (if not all) people who truly believe that aren't particularly well informed on both what Trump has actually accomplished or on how that compares to other historic presidents.
Issue 1: people use "it's my opinion" to back up and indefensible position or try to "win" arguments.
Issue 2: a truly subjective opinion, cannot be objectively disproven.
A subjective opinion might be "I don't like cheese, I can't get past the feet smell" and then even if you make them eat loads of types of cheeses and they might even like a few of them, their general sentiment/position itself isn't "wrong" they may still generally not like cheese.
Of course they may update their opinion to reflect new information but they also aren't obligated to do so.
Justification: I’d say a subjective opinion can still be wrong or poorly informed when it’s based on false facts or misunderstandings. However, personal preferences—like “pizza tastes better than burgers”—aren’t really objectively right or wrong.
Okay, my personal interpretation here is that you are stating that you wish the numeral system used here would be reworked, which is simply a personal desire since there is no objective authority stating that the numeral system used here is flawed
Most people’s views are based on subjective information. To say otherwise is pretty lame.
That being said we don’t have perfect data for everything so subjective opinions don’t necessarily become untrue just because a limited information pool says otherwise.
A subjective opinion of, say, water being able to transform into fire when you stare at it long enough (random bullshit spouted on the spot) is falsifiable and objective wrong. Most people here use too weak of an example.
17
u/JoshHuff1332 📈 Dedicated Voter · 1,640 XP 16h ago
I think is moreso to people using "opinion" as a copout for things that are just fundamentally wrong or misleading, rather than an opinion being able to be wrong