I searched pretty thoroughly. I still do not really understand the complaint. Perhaps an example would help.
Are you serious? This is GD after all.
How about the actual quote itself, verbatim?
That’s pretty close–but I’m also saying that beliefs (statements with truth value) that you can’t support don’t necessarily belong anywhere. From the OP:
So I say “especially the thesis of a GD OP,” but I don’t mean “exclusively.” THe post I was complaining about was put in IMHO, but it wasn’t an opinion: it was a claim about cause and effect. Apparently Dutchman erroneously believed, and believes, that his claim was actually an opinion and therefore it doesn’t require any support. I’m saying that he needs to put up or shut up, since it’s not an opinion at all, but rather a claim about reality. In other words, Dutchman, if you don’t want to joust with my superior intellect, limit yourself to claims without truth value.
Unfortunately for this line of thought, there is actually an official policy that GD is the place for at least some beliefs.
To the degree that the presuppositions for the OP’s claims (or opinions, or thankfulness to George Bush, or whatever) were specious at best, do we really need to formalize original posts in anticipation of something that inevitably pans out in subsequent posts? Whether you want to call it a belief or opinion, what matters for the purposes of this board (whether in IMHO or GD) is that it’s an assertion–and was easily recognized for one by the second or third post–no matter how indirect, and as such is up for discussion. We needn’t worry so much about the epistemology of how it got there, need we? It might be annoying, but what else is new?
My problem with the OP is that the distinction asserted is not common English usage. Belief generally implies certainty, opinion something less. See, e.g., Merriam-Webster, belief vs. opinion. My preferred dictionary, The American Edition of the Oxford Dictionary & Thesaurus (unfortunately, not available online) draws a similar distinction in more detail, emphasizing the religious connotation of belief. The verb believe, meanwhile, is interesting in that it often is used to describe the expression of an opinion. Indeed, every statement in the third paragraph of the OP could be equally well expressed as "It’s my opinion that … " Likewise, every statement in the fourth paragraph could be equally well expressed as "I believe that … "
ISTM Frylock was right in Post #38. What we want to distinguish are beliefs/opinions which are supported from those which are not. This goes to substance and avoids the usage debate entirely. Compare the frequent wrangling here over what atheist vs. agnostic means. Does anyone think this is constructive? I don’t. Of which speaking, “think” and “ISTM” are but two of many synonyms for believe. Others include assert, sense, feel, suspect, conclude and submit. There are many more. Ditto for belief and opinion. Rather than try to dictate what terms may be used and what they mean, let’s stick to substance. The meat of the OP could have been - indeed, was - easily stated on those grounds.
Won’t do. Places too much limitation on witnessing.
I like to distinguish between empirical statements and normative statements, or between statements of fact and statements of value. If an opinion contains the verb “to be” in it it is likely to be a statement of fact. If it contains the verb “should” in it it is a value.
“The unemployment rate under Jimmy Carter was higher than under Ronald Reagan,” is an empirical statement. As it happens, it is false.
“Those who are unemployed should rely on themselves, rather than the government,” is a normative statement. One either feels that way or one does not. The statement cannot be proven. Of course, one who has a secure job is more likely to feel that way than one who cannot find a job.
“Barack Obama is the worst president since Jimmy Carter,” is somewhat more complicated. A person making that statement can be asked to define what he means by “worst,” and to list facts to substantiate his statement. Nevertheless, one agreeing with that statement will do so on the basis of deeply held values.
Yikes–you’re right. I find that fact really annoying, as it obscures an important difference between a value judgment and a claim about truth, but you’re right. I exasperatedly withdraw my objection about the use of the word, but maintain my irritation at people who think it’s okay to make controversial factual claims without having any evidence to back them up.
What you’re referring to is the propositional dimension of language as opposed to its pragmatic dimension. Be and should represent the most fundamental forms that these take on grammatically, but there are other ways. (However I prefer to say that be makes an assertion of fact; a “statement” is simply an utterance.)
When someone says, “I praise Bush for pioneering democracy in the Middle East,” there is propositional presupposition in the statement, and I think this is what Left Hand of Dorkness is concerned with. It’s irritating when someone responds to objections to such a statement by simply saying, “Well, giving praise is just an expression of my opinion. It can’t be wrong.”
That’s precisely it. I suspect that such folks are, like me, operating on a second-grader’s understanding of what “opinion” means, only unlike me they’re confusing it with the other definition Pbear correctly cites.
In other words, it’s equivocation. Either you’re using “opinion” to talk about a judgment of value (“Ice cream is yummy!”), in which case it’s IMHO material but unassailable; or you’re using “opinion” to talk about an uncertain belief (“Bush freed Egypt!”), in which case it’s GD material and assailable.
Kudos. One doesn’t often see those words here. Or anywhere debates are held, for that matter.
So, pretty much the OP could be rewritten “Got a cite, motherfucker?!?”
