schmidtbag:

I'm glad you brought up indifference though, because it's not quite the same thing as lacking an opinion. Indifference means you may have sufficient data to make a biased opinion, but you choose to not pick sides. An absence of opinion means you are aware you don't have sufficient data to have a bias.

I do agree with part which I did not quote here. But to the quote, check this: A: "Do you want chicken or fish for lunch?" B: "I do not mind either of them." (It does not mean person has no opinion, it means that both are OK.) A: "Why are you so indifferent to this." B: "This is not my problem, I can't care less." (Again, there is opinion about thing which results in indifference.) For me, even indifference is result of mental processing, therefore it is opinion for me.

schmidtbag:

Take life elsewhere in the universe for example: So far, we have absolutely no evidence life exists outside of Earth. In fact, there's even evidence that life (as we know it) isn't sustainable throughout most of the universe, for various reasons (but I don't want to get into any more of a tangent than I already have). But on the other hand, considering the seemingly infinite vastness of the universe, or even our own galaxy, the probability of Earth being the only planet with life could be seen as absurd. Since opinions are based on subjectivity, some people will say life exists, some say life doesn't, some don't give a crap, and then there are those like me, who don't really have an opinion on the matter, because there's not enough evidence to support either side. I'd like to think there's life out there, but I don't literally think with confidence that there is.

But you still have opinion: "I'd like to think there's life out there" To that life outside: There are so many phenomenons at which science looks in awe and can't figure out how they came to be. Like planets too close to stars. For all conditions which are needed for planet to be habitable, it looked like really small chance for it to happen. But then better observation/understanding came. And it suddenly looked much better. Mars for example is damn close to be hospitable to life. It had it all, but vented atmosphere (gases vapor) due to low gravity. If it was 30% heavier, it could have had life. And maybe it has life, some bacterial... deep under ground where there is sufficient atmospheric pressure. Maybe it has underground ocean... likely frozen by now. Opinions are everywhere. Truly not having opinion requires lack of knowledge. Because even in example of knowing exact properties of objects, You may consider it great while someone other may consider it bad. (Who is right and who has wrong opinion? Or are those both opinions?) I think that only logic is opinion-less and even that may be true only on lowest level as complex logical extrapolations may touch those subjective subjects.

Fox2232:

I do agree with part which I did not quote here. But to the quote, check this: ... For me, even indifference is result of mental processing, therefore it is opinion for me.

I agree - indifference absolutely is an opinion. That's why I wanted to clarify indifference isn't the same thing as a lack of an opinion. In the scenario you propose, an opinion is mandatory. In fact, there's even another option to add to it: "I'm not hungry". However, we can put a little twist on your example, where a lack of opinion can exist: Let's say there was someone who was vegan their entire life, and was asked "what do you think tastes better: chicken or fish" and they could say "I don't have an opinion on the matter" because they don't know what either of them tastes like. Of course, they could say "I don't like either of them" which is obviously an opinion, but that also isn't actually answering the question, because surely that person would dislike one more than the other. Does that make sense?

But you still have opinion: "I'd like to think there's life out there"

Yes, that is an opinion, but the opinion in this context is that I want there to be life out there - I don't actually have an opinion as to whether or not there actually is. There is compelling evidence on both sides, and therefore, I don't know which side is correct. I'm not indifferent, because that means I don't care (and I do care).

To that life outside: There are so many phenomenons at which science looks in awe and can't figure out how they came to be. Like planets too close to stars. For all conditions which are needed for planet to be habitable, it looked like really small chance for it to happen. But then better observation/understanding came. And it suddenly looked much better.

That is true, but it's important to keep in mind that habitability requires a pretty lengthy checklist, such as (but not limited to) level of solar radiation, magnetic field, distance to the center of the galaxy (where gamma and x rays are a problem), temperature, atmosphere, vital elements and materials, climate, day length, and even the age of the host star. If just one of these things is off, that could throw away the potential for life. That being said, yes, Mars is damn close to hospitable, but it also has several damning problems, too. Mars can be made habitable, but it currently isn't naturally compatible with life as we know it, aside from maybe microbial extremophiles.

Maybe it has underground ocean... likely frozen by now.

Actually, just earlier this week, a massive underground liquid lake was discovered on Mars! It's thought to be extremely salty, but it is liquid.

Opinions are everywhere. Truly not having opinion requires lack of knowledge. Because even in example of knowing exact properties of objects, You may consider it great while someone other may consider it bad. (Who is right and who has wrong opinion? Or are those both opinions?) I think that only logic is opinion-less and even that may be true only on lowest level as complex logical extrapolations may touch those subjective subjects.

I totally agree - to truly lack an opinion means a lack of knowledge, hence me not having an opinion on whether life exists elsewhere. And I think NaturalViolence alluded to this, where he said ""I don't know" is a perfectly ok position to have when the facts are not known".

schmidtbag:

I agree - indifference absolutely is an opinion. That's why I wanted to clarify indifference isn't the same thing as a lack of an opinion. In the scenario you propose, an opinion is mandatory. In fact, there's even another option to add to it: "I'm not hungry". However, we can put a little twist on your example, where a lack of opinion can exist: Let's say there was someone who was vegan their entire life, and was asked "what do you think tastes better: chicken or fish" and they could say "I don't have an opinion on the matter" because they don't know what either of them tastes like. Of course, they could say "I don't like either of them" which is obviously an opinion, but that also isn't actually answering the question, because surely that person would dislike one more than the other. Does that make sense?

I think that you can have opinion about food you never ate. You still know texture of each of those 2 meats. even if from visual observation. Likely smell is known too. It is like you seeing menu and picking visually from things you never ate before. When someone asks you question (even one you would rather not be asked), your brain processes it and throws back something, even if you take that something and ignore it in answer due to conviction like veganism.

schmidtbag:

Yes, that is an opinion, but the opinion in this context is that I want there to be life out there - I don't actually have an opinion as to whether or not there actually is. There is compelling evidence on both sides, and therefore, I don't know which side is correct. I'm not indifferent, because that means I don't care (and I do care).

What about: "Possibility Exists." that's quite an answer in between both camps. And it is as much opinion as: "No, Earth is only planet with life." or "Yes, there surely is life." It is similar to my reply I always give about existence of God: "Possibility exists, but it is highly unlikely, that such entity exists. As all evidence is as good as Lord of the rings being proof of Sauron's existence."

schmidtbag:

That is true, but it's important to keep in mind that habitability requires a pretty lengthy checklist, such as (but not limited to) level of solar radiation, magnetic field, distance to the center of the galaxy (where gamma and x rays are a problem), temperature, atmosphere, vital elements and materials, climate, day length, and even the age of the host star. If just one of these things is off, that could throw away the potential for life. That being said, yes, Mars is damn close to hospitable, but it also has several damning problems, too. Mars can be made habitable, but it currently isn't naturally compatible with life as we know it, aside from maybe microbial extremophiles. Actually, just earlier this week, a massive underground liquid lake was discovered on Mars! It's thought to be extremely salty, but it is liquid.

Yet another not possible turned to maybe. It is similar to Brown Dwarfs. Before IR telescopes came, most of star systems were considered as having just one star. Now Binary systems are common. And Brown Dwarfs may allow planets to have life too, just different kind.

schmidtbag:

I totally agree - to truly lack an opinion means a lack of knowledge, hence me not having an opinion on whether life exists elsewhere. And I think NaturalViolence alluded to this, where he said ""I don't know" is a perfectly ok position to have when the facts are not known".

Well, there @NaturalViolence kind of called assumption an opinion. Because @fantaskarsef actually assumed that they were promoted thanks to their financial impact. But there he still may have kind of opinion leading to this assumption... "those 3 are scumbags..." 😀 (assumption on my side) Most of other posters had opinion about expressions they have on photos (me included) 😀 Now, asking us to not assume without any supporting evidence, that would be different story. Because that's higher brain function and there we have control over process. It is huge difference... You look at someone and 1st thing in your mind: "Oh, F*, I am outta here." No thinking before needed, opinion formed subconsciously. Or: "He is swinging that 40 pounds rod like I would swing 1 pound umbrella. If I step into this arena, I am dead."

Fox2232:

I think that you can have opinion about food you never ate. You still know texture of each of those 2 meats. even if from visual observation. Likely smell is known too. It is like you seeing menu and picking visually from things you never ate before. When someone asks you question (even one you would rather not be asked), your brain processes it and throws back something, even if you take that something and ignore it in answer due to conviction like veganism.

All valid points, and things I considered. But, putting semantics like texture and smell aside, the fundamental point is opinions (or lack thereof) can be a conscious decision. So even if the first instinct is "fish look gross and most people seem to like chicken, so I probably would prefer chicken" that person could pause and think further "but I literally have no idea what they taste like. I can't actually say I prefer the taste of one vs the other if this is unknown to me". So, I'm not disagreeing with you here, but rather showing how an opinion of a first impression can be changed, even without any external influence. And, that you can opt to revoke the opinion of your instinctual reaction. I'd also like to clarify - first impressions are practically unavoidable, as you have alluded to. Even if it's subconscious, we form opinions on just about everything we're exposed to.

What about: "Possibility Exists." that's quite an answer in between both camps. And it is as much opinion as: "No, Earth is only planet with life." or "Yes, there surely is life." It is similar to my reply I always give about existence of God: "Possibility exists, but it is highly unlikely, that such entity exists. As all evidence is as good as Lord of the rings being proof of Sauron's existence."

Well, possibility is pretty much the argument as to why life should exist elsewhere. One side says "there is no evidence life exists elsewhere" and the other side says "it's statistically impossible that life couldn't exist elsewhere". So, for someone who believes "life possibly exists" as their opinion, they are actively rejecting the evidence suggesting otherwise. For me personally, I don't deny the possibility, but, I'm also not willing to ignore the current evidence (I also know this evidence is subject to change). My lack of opinion on whether life exists elsewhere is, ironically, because I think one side is not more correct than the other. In other words, I used my opinions to not have an opinion, which in my opinion, is allowed 😀. The existence of god(s) is a great example to bring up. The dictionary definition of agnosticism could be summarized as "I don't believe a higher-being exists, but I don't believe one doesn't exist either, because there isn't enough evidence to support either side". Meanwhile, there's "spiritual" people, who believe there may be a higher-being, but have no info about it/them, they don't know whether or not there's an afterlife, and they don't know whether it has anything to do with the current state of human existence; you could argue this is the equivalent of being "religiously indifferent". Then, there's atheists, who specifically believe there is nothing. Agnostics are in between - they literally and voluntarily do not believe in anything (or lack thereof), and belief is nothing more than an opinion held regardless of evidence. I hope I'm not coming across too strong or arrogant - I'm just trying to be more concise. I like hearing your thoughts, though.

Yet another not possible turned to maybe. It is similar to Brown Dwarfs. Before IR telescopes came, most of star systems were considered as having just one star. Now Binary systems are common. And Brown Dwarfs may allow planets to have life too, just different kind.

Very true! Every other month we're making new discoveries about the universe, and even our own solar system. New possibilities open up all the time. Not only are binary systems common, but double-binaries or even triple binaries exist. For example, the tip of the Big Dipper is actually 6 stars, where there are 2 binary pairs orbiting each other (consisting of 4 stars), and those 2 binary systems are in a binary with another binary pair. It boggles my mind how such a system can naturally remain stable.

Well, there @NaturalViolence kind of called assumption an opinion. ... But there he still may have kind of opinion leading to this assumption... "those 3 are scumbags..." 😀 (assumption on my side) ... Now, asking us to not assume without any supporting evidence, that would be different story. Because that's higher brain function and there we have control over process. It is huge difference... You look at someone and 1st thing in your mind: "Oh, F*, I am outta here." No thinking before needed, opinion formed subconsciously. Or: "He is swinging that 40 pounds rod like I would swing 1 pound umbrella. If I step into this arena, I am dead."

Makes sense, I don't disagree with any of that. Like I said, I wasn't really taking sides - this discussion I brought up was more a bit out of context and just a fun and friendly brain exercise.