I think you’ve come up with somewhat of a straw-definition of opinions. My preferred definition of opinions is “plausible bullshit”. An opinion is a tentative stance, that (the holder ought to realise) can be easily moved by new evidence.
I don’t think we should (or can) stop having opinions, we just have to take them a lot less seriously.
Opinions to me seem similar to the bayesian agent’s quality of always being ready to assign a probability to any claim. There is no claim to which a bayesian cannot assign a probability. The probability will often be quite wrong, but they have to have one. They can’t work otherwise. They can know how wrong the probability is and exercise the virtue of lightness and update quickly when contrary evidence comes in.
I have an opinion about quantum computing. I’m not a physicist. I haven’t spoken to a physicist about this opinion. But for now, I’d be willing to bet P 0.2 on quantum computing being a generally bad technology that will mostly just concentrate the power to break (some) encryption in the hands of a few governments, doing little for peace or science, which we would be better off without. I wouldn’t be at all shocked if someone replied to this comment and took this opinion away from me with just one sentence and a link. I would thank them graciously. But until that happens, I must continue to have this weird opinion, because it is simply how the scales of evidence tip, right now, for me.
Hold your opinions weakly, and you get to have as many as you want.
I’ve gotten into the habit of ending my jokes with “imo” and trying not to say imo in any other context. I will maintain the pattern until everyone understands how unimportant opinions are.
I think you’ve come up with somewhat of a straw-definition of opinions. My preferred definition of opinions is “plausible bullshit”. An opinion is a tentative stance, that (the holder ought to realise) can be easily moved by new evidence.
I don’t think we should (or can) stop having opinions, we just have to take them a lot less seriously.
Opinions to me seem similar to the bayesian agent’s quality of always being ready to assign a probability to any claim. There is no claim to which a bayesian cannot assign a probability. The probability will often be quite wrong, but they have to have one. They can’t work otherwise. They can know how wrong the probability is and exercise the virtue of lightness and update quickly when contrary evidence comes in.
I have an opinion about quantum computing. I’m not a physicist. I haven’t spoken to a physicist about this opinion. But for now, I’d be willing to bet P 0.2 on quantum computing being a generally bad technology that will mostly just concentrate the power to break (some) encryption in the hands of a few governments, doing little for peace or science, which we would be better off without. I wouldn’t be at all shocked if someone replied to this comment and took this opinion away from me with just one sentence and a link. I would thank them graciously. But until that happens, I must continue to have this weird opinion, because it is simply how the scales of evidence tip, right now, for me.
Hold your opinions weakly, and you get to have as many as you want.
I’ve gotten into the habit of ending my jokes with “imo” and trying not to say imo in any other context. I will maintain the pattern until everyone understands how unimportant opinions are.