Re: opinion and statements

alright. perhaps i havent made it clear enough. shame on me.
the difference is so huge and overlooked, that its a mess.
first of all there are two "things" to clear it up:
1. an uttterance which is intentionally false = LIE
2. an utterance which is carelessly false = we have no exact word for this.
(misinform?,misrepresentative? not quite..)

there exist "absolute true utterances" but that was not what im talking about.
i dont judge about how true or false a utterance is objectively.
i formulated the definition "..claims to.." not without cogiations.
its just a claim nothing else. i never spoke about "absolute true utterances".

let me explain the difference between opinion and statement with an example:
-person1 opines that kids should be allowed to eats sweets.
-person2 opines that kids should *not* be allowed to eats sweets.
both have no problems with each other, because they opine only
and do not try to push their "opinions" toward each other.
but would they "state" it, they would try to influence/convince,
make their statements true for all of the world.
they would argue, they would wrangle, they would maybe hate each other.
BUT in this case they actually opine only, so they care only for their OWN world,
with their opinion, for thei OWN kid, and do not try to persuade everyone with this.
this are just VERY rough distinction of completely different things,
and i hope its clear now.
you can even split it up in more specific types of uttereance, but at least
this split is important.
its all about claims.
i can opine everything. i can opine that penguins dont exist.
but i cannot state it. when i try to state it i get oppositors, who contrdict me.
because with a statement i try to attack THEIR statements.
statements have to create a consense between persons to bring peace.
opinions   have NOT to create a consense between persons to bring peace.

regards,
c.s.



DP> In a message dated 6/22/01 7:16:24 PM, claudio.soboll@GMX.DE writes:

DP> << alas, exactly this lack is responsible for misunderstandings and
DP> wrangles and verbal fights again and again.
DP> look at your next verbal discussion and you will notice it.
DP> add an "for me" explicitely to your utterances and no one can harm you
DP> verbally.
DP> thats just an workaround. for an ideal language the distinction
DP> between both is important as separate introducing verbs.as well as the
DP> distinction between
DP> evidences. they should be head-markers because they are
DP> 1. concern the content of the whole sentence,
DP> 2. are neccesary to percept the sentence right. >>

DP>     Per usual, I have several problems with this.  First of all, your opinion
DP> that there are such things as true statements is just that: an opinion.  I'm
DP> of the opinion that there's no such thing as an absolute true statement
DP> because we're human.  After all, we have two eyes, the average of which is
DP> what we perceive as "vision", and then we interpret what we see.
DP>     Take the concept of lying.  In order for their to be a lie, there are
DP> three important factors.  In order of decreasing importance, they are:
DP>     1.) The speaker believes the statement s/he speaks to be false.
DP>     2.) The speaker intends to deceive the listener.
DP>     3.) The fact is actually false.
DP>     So, as you can see, the absolute least important part of a lie is whether
DP> or not the thing your'e talking about is "true" or "false".  An example:  Say
DP> there's a pot in the backyard of a house.  A child who has just gotten a
DP> brand new dog sees the dog run towards the pot and then hears it break, but
DP> DOESN'T see it break.  Naturally, the child assumes the dog broke the pot.
DP> The father of this child doesn't like the dog and has been looking for any
DP> excuse in the book to get rid of the dog.  So, when the father comes home and
DP> sees the pot broken, he turns to his child and asks, "Who did this?"  The
DP> child, as innocently as possible said, "The neighbor broke it."
DP>     Now, what actually happened was that the next door neighbor has two
DP> children who are in their early teens.  They were playing catch in the
DP> backyard.  One of them through the ball too hard and it went over the fence,
DP> so the other jumped over the fence to get it.  The dog ran towards this teen
DP> when he saw him, and the teen fell onto the side of the pot and broke it.  He
DP> quickly got up, got the ball and hopped the fence, so that by the time the
DP> child ran out, all he saw was the broken pot, and his dog's feet in soil.
DP>     So, did this child lie?  The answer, of course, is yes, because (a) he
DP> believed what he said to be false (most importantly), and (b) he intended to
DP> deceive his father by saying so.  Does it matter at all that the lie he
DP> happened to create was the actual truth?  Not in the slightest.
DP>     So, this distinction that you hope to make in an "ideal" language would
DP> immediately be flawed, in that one can't know for certain whether or not one
DP> is stating actual fact, or merely an opinion.  One can only tell whether or
DP> not one believes what one says; that's it.  And of course, if one is wont to
DP> lie rampantly for the purposes of fun (I count myself in this number), then
DP> these "statement" markers could be greatly abused.

DP> -David


"rurmlor entflöt, fluppseveri trimel akre wopel larf."
- alte redensart