Opinions Can Be Wrong

Early one morning in the summer of 2007 I had a lengthy disagreement with some friends regarding my statement 'opinions can be wrong.'

For my friends, this statement was nonsensical. Opinions couldn't be wrong because they were not facts. Facts were true, but only because they underwent a lengthy disputation before they were considered ‘right’ or ‘wrong.’ On the other hand, opinions were judgments that did not have to be based on facts. (Back then I was known for having opinions based on whims, making this discussion difficult to be taken seriously.) Therefore, applying the standards of facts to opinions was unfair to opinions. (This could also have been an opinion that was wrong.)

My main argument was an appeal to authority: an individual that neither reads nor writes might have a low opinion of a book considered a classic by the experts, in which case their opinion would be ‘wrong’ because it is based on whimsical subjectivity and not the objective knowledge known by the experts.

My friends were unconvinced. They claimed that the same parameters could not be applied to art. The beauty of art was subjective. A classic book that did not appeal to an unread individual could be considered ‘bad’ by that “reader” because that unread individual was not the proper audience and did not have the proper knowledge to appreciate it. Likewise, an Ivy League educated book snob would not appreciate even a classic work of ghetto fiction because they are not the proper audience. There is no 'right' or 'wrong' in art because context is everything.

However, writing technique is objective because it is based on objective rules of language. Every artistic medium is based on objective, definitive techniques. When an artist masters these techniques they begin the process of creation that is then judged by the eyes of the beholders, some of which have expert knowledge in areas unknown to a casual observer. Therefore, the more an individual knows, the more weight their opinion holds. Experts cannot force appreciation, but they can inspire it.

The closer a work of art arrives at the truth, the more beautiful it is. This nuance is lost on the philistine making their opinion worth less than the expert's. Not all opinions are equal. That is ok. That is a beautiful truth in itself.

On and on we argued, arriving at an impasse when the sun started to rise.

The debate I had with my friends that morning was healthy and normal, but over the years the truth has not bridged that impasse. The truth has been replaced by the cancer of lies, in the institution where it matters most: education. The same authorities by which I appealed were now expert liars.
Having an ignorant opinion on a topic of interest is normal for any fledgling student. It is the first step of the education process.

The problem arises when there is no debate or further investigation into a topic of interest to form a more nuanced and expert opinion. When critical, dissident thinking is not promoted, when free thought is stifled, when the statement ‘men can get pregnant’ becomes a commandment, and only heretics ask the obvious ‘how?’ By tradition, naive students rightfully trust that their handsomely paid mentors are teaching them the truth, and not a disputed opinion. Nowadays—because they are naive—students marry the first opinions they are force fed in college.

Once married to an opinion, a young fool will be very reluctant to divorce it. Instead, they will defend this idea, which further justifies their love for it. As they grow closer to it, they ignore all the facts that dispute it as “baseless.” This thought pattern is a disservice to critical thinking, and follows a young student through all the decisions they make throughout their lives.

Debating the truth is an ancient rite of passage. In societies of humble and self reflective individuals, the truth, when admitted, sets us free. That is becoming impossible in this society because the truth is taught to be relative. This creates a generation of people who do not have faith in God and do not know how to have faith in God. Rather, they have faith in the lies peddled by powerful authorities with weak opinions. They have replaced God with a political/media authority.

The more we are thoughtfully prodded, the more the truth makes itself known to us. (There will still be disagreements and disputing opinions based on facts, what we want is to eliminate the disputes on fundamentals.) But this is a spiritual battle; the more we don’t question the lies, the more they spread like a virus.

This endeavor is a process. It never occurs instantaneously, if at all. Nowadays, humility is lacking because authorities providing the lies package it with pride and condescension. Knowledge is always hard earned, through life lessons or research. (Nobody wants to do the hard work, they just want to have an opinion to condescend to others.) But if opinions cannot be wrong, then what is the point of having one? What is the point of discussion if there is no truth to arrive at? Pride, ego, self-satisfaction etc

Everything I write and think about is inherently human in nature, and therefore cannot be rectified simply by calling attention to it. The mature human thing to do is discern when to have courageous discussion between disagreeing parties, and then be courageous and have those discussions. Otherwise we give our minds away to the current authoritarians that have furtively gained control over truth.

We are like boiling frogs. The only reason we believe lies is because it is temporarily comfortable...and then we are dead.