0

So I think everything starts as an opinion, because anything that's informal and not necessarily fact. However, some statements must rise to the level of objectivity for something to be considered objective.

So, what makes opinions become objective?

  • 2
    Could you clarify what you mean by ‘objective’? E.g., suppose I say: ‘I find tomatoes tasty’. Is this subjective in your sense, because I’m talking about my personal taste experience; or is it objective because I in fact find tomatoes tasty? Similarly, suppose I believe, correctly, that my friend just crashed his car. I believe this because I had a dream about it last night. Is this subjective, because I’m basing my belief on bad evidence; or is it objective because he did crash his car? – MarkOxford Nov 2 '17 at 10:28
  • @MarkOxford Objective means that it concerns more than the subject. That the statement refers to states of things that are independent of the subject. – mavavilj Nov 2 '17 at 10:34
  • One can refer to states of things independent of the subject, and yet describe them subjectively, e.g. "this flower is beautiful". Your question currently seems too broad for SE, there are lots of philosophical doctrines of objectivity. Please look at IEP's objectivity and SEP's Scientific Objectivity and try to focus it more narrowly. – Conifold Nov 2 '17 at 19:59
1

I would say that one way for opinions to become objective is to pass the empirical test. You can test your opinions and find out if they are right or wrong. If an opinion becomes objective, it will not be an opinion anymore, rather it will become a fact. It is not a personal opinion that the speed of light has the value that it has and it is invariant in every inertial reference frame.

1

Would it be useful - perhaps not - to treat 'objective' as a contrast term ? To say that an opinion is objective is to claim or to presuppose that it is not biased, not idiosyncratic, not prejudiced, not the outcome of self-deception ...? In this case there would be no feature common and distinctive to objective opinions, simply a number of features any one or mix of which could deprive an opinion of objectivity. One implication of this approach is that there is no necessary connection between objectivity and truth. My opinion about X might be free from bias, idiosyncrasy, prejudice or self-deception but still be false. (Unless, of course, the list left open and incomplete ('...') contains features which do rule out error. It isn't immediately clear to me what such features might be.)

0

Neither opinion nor objectivity are particularly tightly defined hence any statement as to the point at which they change state is, by necessity, opinion (somewhat ironically).

However, what I like to use as a yardstick for objectivity is if it is feasible for others to come to the same opinion and, by applying reasonable rules of evidence and logic, they will come to the same opinion.

Using this approach, MarkOxford's "I find tomato's tasty" could never be objective but "tomatoes grow on tomato plants" can be.

You may note that what I've really done is replace the, somewhat vague, terms of opinion and objectivity with the, also vague, terms of feasible and reasonable. I don't believe there's a better approach but that, of course, is just my objective fact.

  • Hmm, but don't you think it's logically incoherent to assume that "they do change", but then say that "but the point of change (which we know exists) is a matter of opinion"? – mavavilj Nov 2 '17 at 11:27
  • Not at all. It is perfectly rational for individuals to have different bars for evidence. What happens in practice is that there becomes a quorum of people that have passed their bars and so most newcomers assume objectivity until proven otherwise. This process is probably easier to see in science than in many other fields as the process of becoming quorate is usually quite well documented. But it can take decades. – Alex Nov 2 '17 at 11:58
  • Wouldn't "tomatoes grow on tomato plants" be more of a fact than an opinion? – barrycarter Nov 2 '17 at 13:30
  • At least if expert testimony counts as ‘reasonable evidence’, my example of ‘I find tomatoes tasty’ is very much objective under your criterion: I’m an expert on my own taste preferences, and you just heard my testimony. – Otherwise, I agree though that we’re better off studying notions like evidence and rationality. – MarkOxford Nov 2 '17 at 13:42
  • @barrycarter Well, many people would agree with it as there's a well established quorum. I'm guessing that happened around the 17C in Europe. As such, many would reasonably treat it as a fact. Interestingly, some geneticists who spend their days cloning fruit might consider this only an approximation to a fact. One day, it may not be a fact at all. – Alex Nov 2 '17 at 13:47
-4

There are opinions that are Common Knowledge, Words sold singling out Special seeds people, and The Empath, the Presleep sleep paralysis Astrial projection, Ego Death, Why kill my I? so I can buy their inflated Ego everywhere I go. Ironic Actually. Paper Street Soap Company Inc. You can get more specific with personalities with the MBTI test online, it is popular. Ego is the Selfishness the Empathy lacks and needs to Survive. Emotional Eugenics is my Theory, OK, I started Very straight forward with The Big Five, cite: Carl Jung, Types of personalities Types of Crowd mentality.

The Big five personality factors Agreeableness, openess, Extroversion, conscientious, Nuerotic.

People have different levels of these.

Agreeable, you are likely to be kind, sympathetic, cooperative, warm, Empathic, considerate and perhaps Alturistic.

Openness,they may have a transparency to them, what you see is what you get, free, unrestricted access to their knowledge and information, collaborative, cooperative , open to new experiences.

Conscientious the Right of Free Will, the wishing to do what is right, especially to do one's work or duty well, throughly.

Neurotic, the level of ones natural suffering, not dictated by a organic disease, how one deals with trauma, crisis, trouble, problems.

Crowd mentality here is a slope, and it gets slippery even confirmation of a Bias can trigger someone's imprinting instincts.

The individual is heavily influenced, loss of self and the impression of a universality of behavior. Which will increase with the size of the crowd.

Submergence, individual loss of self and personal responsibility

Contagion, the propensity For an individual in a crowd to unquestionably follow the predominant ideals and emotions shared by the crowd. There is a lesser sense of legal culpability in a crowd that's Dangerous in Democracy. It is a all for one and one for all, If your friend split second chooses to 6under someone well, you go to. I would tell my Boys growing up, No one likes to get into trouble alone.

Deindividualization, the person loses their self awareness, morals, guilt, shame, conscience, Etc.being integrated into a CROWD And accepted you begin to project, I believe this trait is linked to Dark Triads as they are a driving factor in bully crowd mentality. as can be seen tested by Science, some on the Internet, people will do things online that they never would in real life.

The Barnum Effect Generalize your objectives To suit anyone, everywhere And to make it seem personally specific to the individuallly duel.

I believe all these added up, if they were packaged neatly with the correct delivery, it could cause a ideology of one or two to take root and then hold.

How did metaphysics get highjacked by out of body experiences, star seeds, stones and woo? The reasons I stated above It was agreeable, it made people feel special and snowflake like, they knew something others did not, They felt a bond with other believers and that bond is as strong as ever if you travel the Internet . You'll even find a certain stone to go with a certain star that should bring about a magical manifestation of your twin flame or soul mate.

Sight words, use of language in a time of Unrest or dissatisfaction Example; Change we can believe in. Change we need. Hope Yes we can. These words, at that time with you all humans,
Won a man the Oval Office.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.