Mother dies refusing Blood Transfusion.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You must be taking lessons from Humpty Dumpty. A word doesn't have a particular meaning because DrScribbles says so. I provided a dictionary definition that comports with the way I used the word "opinion". Attempts to change the English language should be addressed to the proper lexicongraphers.

Well, why would you cite a ridiculous definition instead of one that is sensible?

The obvious answer is that it's the only way you could support your confused thinking. Why don't you just admit that when you said it was a matter of opinion, that that's not what you really meant. Do I have to embarrass you into months of hiding again, like last time?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Well, why would you cite a ridiculous definition instead of one that is sensible?

The obvious answer is that it's the only way you could support your confused thinking. Why don't you just admit that when you said it was a matter of opinion, that that's not what you really meant. Do I have to embarrass you into months of hiding again, like last time?

You're embarassing yourself by pretending that a standard dictionary definition is wrong because you say so. Coletti used to try this but I thought you'd try to stay out of that sort of company.

Originally posted by no1marauder
You're embarassing yourself by pretending that a standard dictionary definition is wrong because you say so.

I'm not arguing that it's wrong because I say so.

I have provided several examples of the definition's shortcomings, and I have provided a more useful alternative.

You on the other hand say it's right because Noah Webster says so.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
They are both true under no1marauder's proposed definition.

They are both false under my notion of opinion.

no1marauder only claimed the first. You claimed that it entailed the second and argue that, therefore, the first one was false.

If they are not equivalent, one does not entail the other. Do you agree that they are not equivalent?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Let A be "JW's are very confused because they believe that God doesn't want humans to have blood tranfusions."

A is a statement about the universe. It is not a statement about the subject. A either is the case or is not the case.



Let B be "God doesn't want humans to have blood tranfusions."

B is a statement about the universe. It is n ...[text shortened]... bject. B either is the case or is not the case.


There are no opinions in play here.

There are no opinions, but there are interpretations. The problem is when people believe their interpretations are true.
JW believe that thing, most Christian's think it's wrong. But many Christians also believe other strange stuff they are not willing to question. What no1 is trying to say is: JW's logic and position in no different then other Christians or religious people who have their beliefs. We calls it opinion, maybe that's a bad word. I stick with "their interpretation".
If you question JW's position, you must question other religious dogma. For me, nothing in the Bible makes sense except for those who are willing to believe in it. Let JW's believe. Isn't this a free world?

Originally posted by Palynka


If they are not equivalent, one does not entail the other. Do you agree that they are not equivalent?

The first does entail the second. The second can never be false when the first is true.

I'm happy to dispute the proposed definition on either basis directly. My analysis does not rely on any equivalence of the definition's entailments.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
The first does entail the second. The second can never be false when the first is true.

Of course it can.

First: You are assuming that if an issue is not yet known with certainty then it cannot be known with certainty.

Second: You are assuming that opinions are equally valid regardless whether they fit the facts (not the full facts) that are already known about the issue.

Originally posted by Palynka
Of course it can.

First: You are assuming that if an issue is not yet known with certainty then it cannot be known with certainty.

Second: You are assuming that opinions are equally valid regardless whether they fit the facts (not the full facts) that are already known about the issue.

Neither of those two assumptions have any bearing on the entailment in question or on my analysis of the definition.

Construct a counterexample.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Neither of those two assumptions have any bearing on the entailment in question or on my analysis of the definition.

Of course they have.

A "matter of opinion" implies that all opinions are equally valid. Without the second assumption, you can't jump from the first statement to the last.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
I'm not arguing that it's wrong because I say so.

I have provided several examples of the definition's shortcomings, and I have provided a more useful alternative.

You on the other hand say it's right because Noah Webster says so.

I use standard definitions, not ScribblesSpeak. An opinion is not a fact either because it is A) Not falsifiable OR B) Not proven or verified. Your definition adopts A; mine (and the standard one) includes B. Thus, the JW's belief that God doesn't want them to have blood transfusions is an opinion.

Originally posted by Palynka
Of course they have.

A "matter of opinion" implies that all opinions are equally valid.

Well, not under no1's notion of opinion. He's already made explicit that some are better than others.

And despite that, the entailment still holds.

Construct a counterexample.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Thus, the JW's belief that God doesn't want them to have blood transfusions is an opinion.

Under your notion of opinion. But of course, under your definition, all that you're really claiming is that they are not sure, which is a very weak claim since we have proof or positive knowledge about very, very few things, making almost every position an opinion under your definition.

A lot stronger claims can be made once you incorporate a better notion of opinion into your framework for epistemic analysis.

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Well, not under no1's notion of opinion. He's already made explicit that some are better than others.

And despite that, the entailment still holds.

Construct a counterexample.

The case in point. One may argue one's interpretation of the religious text and that constitutes one's opinion on how the text should be read. However, this is not simply a matter of opinion, because the opinion that the passage is a plot by the Bilderberg to eliminate certain strata of the population is clearly false.

The issue is not simply a "matter of opinion", because opinions have different validity and not all opinions are valid.

Originally posted by Palynka
The case in point. One may argue one's interpretation of the religious text and that constitutes one's opinion on how the text should be read. However, this is not simply a matter of opinion, because the opinion that the passage is all plot by the Bilderberg to eliminate certain strata of the population is clearly false.

The issue is not simply a "matter of opinion", because opinions have different validity and not all opinions are valid.

Now you're just equivocating, compounding the confusion introduced by the already confused notion. (The quotes and "simply" are a big clue, the same sort of confusion exhibited by phrases like "true Christian". The propositions you put before me to examine did not contain quotes or "simply", so what you have constructed is not a counterexample to my claim.)

Do you think no1's definition is a good one?

Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
Under your notion of opinion. But of course, under your definition, all that you're really claiming is that they are not sure, which is a very weak claim since we have proof or positive knowledge about very, very few things, making almost every position an opinion under your definition.

A lot stronger claims can be made once you incorporate a better notion of opinion into your framework for epistemic analysis.

"My notion" is the standard one in the English language. Nor do I accept that all opinions are equally likely to true. Again from the dictionary:

Opinion - implies a conclusion thought out yet open to dispute