To be right or to be wrong

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

What is "to be right" or "to be wrong" In which circumstantes can one say that his/her opinions are on one side or the other? Am I right if I reach a conclusion (that later is proven correct) with a wrong induction? Am I wrong if the consensus believes Im wrong?

Im I right if what I say is verified by the evidence? What if the evidence change?

Anyway, questions, questions.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

What is "to be right" or "to be wrong" In which circumstantes can one say that his/her opinions are on one side or the other? Am I right if I reach a conclusion (that later is proven correct) with a wrong induction? Am I wrong if the consensus believes Im wrong?

Im I right if what I say is verified by the evidence? What if the evidence change?

Anyway, questions, questions.

I'll try to unpack that.

Opinions cannot be right or wrong, because they're not objective. E.G. An apple is either red or some other color, and the frequency of light it reflects is a matter of fact. Whether or not the apple is pretty to look at or pleasant to eat cannot be judged right or wrong, and that doesn't change no matter how many people wiegh in on the subject. Opinions are not judged based on evidence, they're subjective. Evidence may inform opinions, however.

Am I following you at all, here?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I'll try to unpack that.

Opinions cannot be right or wrong, because they're not objective. E.G. An apple is either red or some other color, and the frequency of light it reflects is a matter of fact. Whether or not the apple is pretty to look at or pleasant to eat cannot be judged right or wrong, and that doesn't change no matter how many people wiegh in on the subject. Opinions are not judged based on evidence, they're subjective. Evidence may inform opinions, however.

Am I following you at all, here?

Of course you are right, but Im trying to get a bit deeper in the subject. What if we do not talk about if the apple is "pretty" but stick with "red". Will I be able to say that, because the apple is indeed red, my expression of this fact shows that my opinion is correct?

Furthermore, assuming Im correct, is it because my language have grasped the so called fact?

If you answer yes you would have to assume that an opinion can be objective?

 

[l0rca]

Of course you are right, but Im trying to get a bit deeper in the subject. What if we do not talk about if the apple is "pretty" but stick with "red". Will I be able to say that, because the apple is indeed red, my expression of this fact shows that my opinion is correct?

Furthermore, assuming Im correct, is it because my language have grasped the so called fact?

If you answer yes you would have to assume that an opinion can be objective?

Well... actually, when I read the first post, my initial thought was "the answer to this question can only be reached once a significant amount of philosophising upon one's axioms can be reached".

This is a complicated question. Being right and being wrong can never be objectively stated, but according to pretty much every philosophy out there, we have at least some criteria of saying "that's most probably wrong."

Take falsifiability, for instance.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Well... actually, when I read the first post, my initial thought was "the answer to this question can only be reached once a significant amount of philosophising upon one's axioms can be reached".

This is a complicated question. Being right and being wrong can never be objectively stated, but according to pretty much every philosophy out there, we have at least some criteria of saying "that's most probably wrong."

Take falsifiability, for instance.

"Nothing is true. Everything is permissible" -- allegedly Hassan-i-Sabah’s last words. ;-)

Well, I just throw in a curious problem in linguistics first: “No word has ever the exact same meaning twice” (Hayakawa 1990). This is obviously a hurdle in the absolute theoretical sense but almost never in the practical sense; when we “practically” mean the “same” thing (we subscribe to a close proximity of what ‘apple’ means if we cannot point at it).

With the aforementioned in mind, and some other “quirks” found in linguistics, I quickly tried to formulate a pragmatic definition with the apple in mind. But it turned out to be silly – almost hilarious. Read and giggle!

I guess it’s about using language to such a precise degree until there’s commonality for what observation is to be regarded as decisive. Thus, for colour it is usually wavelength, measured by instruments we subscribe to as valid and reliable in terms of physical consistency when representing the qualities of the object.

I have no clue about physics, but even here, I guess, we must rely on a convent regarding what precise wavelength one colour turns into another colour. Could someone clarify this for me please?

 

[edge]

If you took that apple near a blue star wouldn't it be a different color?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

This is a complicated question. Being right and being wrong can never be objectively stated, but according to pretty much every philosophy out there, we have at least some criteria of saying "that's most probably wrong."

But we presume that our opinions are correct all the time. We base our actions on this assumption. Even on the personal level we like the fact that "we are right" and others "are wrong". Is as if somehow, we "need" to be right in order to have a ground for actions. We often asume that, in that sense, our opinions or points of view are objective in the sense that they reflect reality.

Now, regarding what you say. Yes, it might be easier to point out why we are not right, or in other words, why our opinions are not objective. Still, this leave us with a puzzle.

Lets say that our opinions about "reality" are maps about it. Lets also say that our maps are less, or maybe more, accurate. How can we be sure about it?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I guess it’s about using language to such a precise degree until there’s commonality for what observation is to be regarded as decisive. Thus, for colour it is usually wavelength, measured by instruments we subscribe to as valid and reliable in terms of physical consistency when representing the qualities of the object.

Lol. I know what you mean. We usually have a strong feeling about what we are talking about its "crystal clear", with precise meanings and a language that represents accurately what we want to say. But just a very brief examination of the words we are using can led us to a profound disorientation.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

If you took that apple near a blue star wouldn't it be a different color?

Exactly. Our meanings depends on our point of view. Change it and there are no grounds to hold almost anything. Yet, it appears that we master our epistemological systems.

 

[CapelDodger]

What is "to be right" or "to be wrong"

To be right is to be proved right, etc. If I call your bet because I think I have you beat, I will be proved right or wrong. If I fold we're into the Schroedinger realm, but there's no right or wrong in there. There is something analogous to opinion, though.

To be right for the wrong reasons is to be lucky, and it's a good idea to consider the luck element of any minor triumph. Being right for the wrong reasons can launch some tragic trajectories in life.

 

[clarsct]

There is right and wrong. Actions are only as large as the consequences they bring.

That is where the whole thing unravels. Our actions have consequences. If you're talking about the color of an apple, well, that isn't usually an topic that carries signifigant consequence. I suppose we could artificially construct a series of events that makes the question signifigant, but that is a construct, and not what we see in reality. Any argument not based in reality isn't consequential.

Our actions can hurt others. Harming other unecessarily is our only real sin. The rest are made up. We legislate very carefully how much and why we are allowed to harm others. The reason being: Mutually Assured Destruction. If we allow ourselves to harm others in any way, we allow them to harm us the same way. Is 'harm' fungible? Well, to a degree. If you chopped someone's arm off, that's pretty hard fact. If you hurt their feelings, well, that's a bit softer. Which is why these things carry different penalities.


Is there a right and wrong in the world? With a certainty. And you'll find it rooted in the consequences of our actions.

 

[Foster Zygote]

Exactly. Our meanings depends on our point of view. Change it and there are no grounds to hold almost anything. Yet, it appears that we master our epistemological systems.

But the properties of the apple have not changed. In natural light the "red" apple will always appear red. The apple will always appear a certain color when illuminated with a certain color light no matter what color the light is.

 

[CapelDodger]

regarding what precise wavelength one colour turns into another colour. Could someone clarify this for me please?

Physics has nothing to say about colour. It doesn't address the matter, and wouldn't if asked. It's a policy issue. The colour is what you decide it is. The wavelength can be known. How we perceive it ... how does that matter? It's just me in here. If I see a red light that was meant to look "red" to me as a signal to stop that's the right thing to do. What do I care what somebody else's perception of red is? As long as it's sparked by the same physical signal the message gets across. Outside the skull, where the real other people are.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Opinions cannot be right or wrong, because they're not objective. E.G. An apple is either red or some other color, and the frequency of light it reflects is a matter of fact. Whether or not the apple is pretty to look at or pleasant to eat cannot be judged right or wrong, and that doesn't change no matter how many people wiegh in on the subject. Opinions are not judged based on evidence, they're subjective. Evidence may inform opinions, however.

Am I following you at all, here?

I'd quibble with using "opinion" as an equivalent for "value judgement" or "question of taste". The word opinion is frequently used in matters of fact, policy, etc.

That's where people will use the old dodge "Everyone's entitled to his opinion" to stop discussion. (What they mean is that everyone's opinion is of equal merit, which is NOT true unless you use it the way ImaginalDisc is, which is for value judgments or matters of taste.)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The ambiguity of the word "opinion" is what this old joke depends on:

Doctor: Sir, you have cancer.
Patient: I want to get a second opinion.
Doctor: OK, you're also ugly.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Another problem with this discussion is that some of us are taking "right" and "wrong" in the sense of true vs false (or factual vs non-factual). Some are taking it for moral value (like good vs bad or moral vs immoral).

Which one are you asking about? Given your mention of "evidence", I'm going with the former.

Am I wrong if the consensus believes Im wrong?

The consensus is irrelevant to the truth-value of a proposition. I'd make the same assertion even in matters of taste or morality.

Im I right if what I say is verified by the evidence? What if the evidence change?

I'm not so certain what you're talking about here. Can evidence change? Or do you mean more evidence comes to light that points a different direction (in which case the first evidence wasn't entirely probative)? Or maybe we were mistaken about the evidence (mismeasurement perhaps)? I dunno.

Am I right if I reach a conclusion (that later is proven correct) with a wrong induction?

This is also ambiguous (i.e. there are two ways your question can be taken). Obviously the conclusion taken for itself is correct if it's proven correct. But "am I right?" might be a question about methodology (like "is my thinking right?") In that case, you could be wrong even though your conclusion is correct.

When I was a teenager, I remember my mom was studying for her state board exams in Physical Therapy. One part of the exam was true/false with a statement and a rationale. The t/f choices were "1)the statement is true and the rationale is true; 2)the statement is true but the rationale is false; 3)the statement is false and the rationale is false; and 4) the statement is false but the rationale is true."

I never could understand the meaning of 4) unless you take the word "rationale" to mean an independent statement. (Obviously if it fails to prove the first statement, it can't be considered a good rationale for it.)

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

To be right is to be proved right, etc. If I call your bet because I think I have you beat, I will be proved right or wrong. If I fold we're into the Schroedinger realm, but there's no right or wrong in there. There is something analogous to opinion, though.

To be right for the wrong reasons is to be lucky, and it's a good idea to consider the luck element of any minor triumph. Being right for the wrong reasons can launch some tragic trajectories in life.

So you say that actual happenings determine if one is right or wrong. Does this imply that we are always guessing? Take two industry analyzer for example. One of them, based on economic facts, the consensus of the market, technical analysis and etc determine that a stock will be up and its time to buy. Another one, based on the same metrics, will say that the stock will fall and its time to sell.

Then lets imagine that the stock did rise. Was the first analyst right? if he was lucky, why is he promoted and the other one fired? (this last question is rethorical, I guess you can see my point).

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

There is right and wrong. Actions are only as large as the consequences they bring.

Im talking about a true-false approach, no morality involved. Sorry if my intention was not clear but english is not my first language. Maybe thats the reason.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

But the properties of the apple have not changed. In natural light the "red" apple will always appear red. The apple will always appear a certain color when illuminated with a certain color light no matter what color the light is.

Ahhhh... but what are those "properties"? We depend our opinions that are based on our senses, to determine those properties in the first place. Lets talk about noumena and phenomena. You would say then that its noumena its the same independently of our opinions? I agree, but thats an assumption, Im not sure about call this "knowledge", because the noumena is beyond us.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

That's where people will use the old dodge "Everyone's entitled to his opinion" to stop discussion. (What they mean is that everyone's opinion is of equal merit, which is NOT true unless you use it the way ImaginalDisc is, which is for value judgments or matters of taste.)

This is what makes the topic interesting. Why are there "more correct" opinions out there? If we were talking about maps could we say that they are better maps? if that is true, can we talk about that the "real territory" is more like those maps?

But then suppose that a well stablished map is proved wrong (in the sense of being useful but not ontologically correct). What happens then?