BBC Sherlock Fan Forum - Serving Sherlockians since February 2012 » "Opinion" vs "agrument"

Schmiezi · July 14, 2014 8:03 am

There is something that is bothering me. It happens in many threads about interpreting the show. What I mean is when someone "argues", but does not give an argument, but simply their opinion.

(Fictitious, maybe a bit provocative) Example: "The writers don't want to show sexual tension between John and Sherlock."

I would be perfectly fine with someone saying "IMO, the writers don't want to show sexual tension between John and Sherlock." or "The writers don't want to show sexual tension between John and Sherlock, here is a link to an interview to proof that."

I always try to distinguish between giving my opinion and giving a valid argument. Maybe that is because every year I put lots of efford in preparing our pupils for their final examinations in German and English. There, they have to be able to express the difference between their (subjective) opinion and an argument based on fact. And in a non-fictional text, they have to be able to see the difference between a real argument and an opinion, dressed up like an argument.

Of course, when talking about fictional texts or a TV show, those facts can still be open for debate, but should be presented in a way that allows the reader to follow the line of argument.

Am I the only one who is bothered by it? What's your opinion on that matter?

SusiGo · July 14, 2014 8:18 am

I agree. As long as there is no definite proof, I always use expressions like "I think", "it seems probable", or "IMO". It can be very frustrating to gather proof and arguments and yet always to receive the same answers quashing all the efforts one has made.
We are no scientists here but of course we should try and disprove arguments instead of just saying "it will not happen", "it is not like that" or "I do not want to see it".

gently69 · July 14, 2014 8:20 am

IMO some people present their "opinion" as an "argument" just because they don't want something to be. They don't like things, e.g. Johnlock, dislike to Mary, Moriaty staying dead or whatever, and "argue" without any proof.

EDIT: Oops, late again.

Last edited by gently69 (July 14, 2014 8:22 am)

SolarSystem · July 14, 2014 8:33 am

I agree with all of you, but I guess that's just how forums on the internet work. Different people have different ways in which to express themselves and their opinions. And if someone states his/her opinion as a simple fact (without giving proof, that's my favourite!), then I suppose there's nothing one can do about it - apart from ignoring it, I suppose.

Harriet · July 14, 2014 12:29 pm

Unfortunately, people who can tell the difference do it anyway and the others won't. My 2 cents

besleybean · July 14, 2014 1:05 pm

1. I think an argument(and I prefer discussion) can be conducted on both opinion and fact.
Certain things are fact and are often written down.
Other things are pure speculation.
It's a shame when people can't distinguish the two.
.2. On a discussion board: one person makes their post and another makes theirs...I've never really seen the problem in that system.
Nobody(that I'm aware of) is telling anybody else what they can and cannot post...well obviously the staff have the perogative.
On a side note: my view on sexual innuendo is well documented and these days is based almost entirely(though not exclusively) on Ian Hallard's piece which I quote in my signature.The full piece is posted on the forum and I can provide it to anybody who wants it.

Schmiezi · July 14, 2014 7:26 pm

besleybean wrote:
1. I think an argument(and I prefer discussion) can be conducted on both opinion and fact.

Oh, maybe there is a misunderstanding. Sorry, not a native speaker. I mean "argument" as in "Your argument is valid" (=The point you are making is valid), not "We were having an argument" (=We were having a fight.)

Let's imagine a discussion about smoking. When my pupils write down, "I don't like smoking" I tell them that it's not an argument, just their opinion. But "I don't want to smoke because it is dangerous for your health." is an argument, consisting of the statement and the fact it is based on.

Basically, I tell them they are heading in the right direction when they use words like "because". And in my (boring) teacher's dreams I like to imagine that people on the forum use "because" in discussion threads more often.

Last edited by Schmiezi (July 14, 2014 7:30 pm)

besleybean · July 14, 2014 7:32 pm

I don't think anybody would disagree with this.

saturnR · July 14, 2014 9:39 pm

I don't have a problem with people expressing opinion about the show as long as they don't infer real life from the show. Example: Sherlock thinks that capital punishment is a good thing, therefore Benedict or Mark or Steven must be a supporter of capital punishment in real life.

It's ok to have an option about the show itself wwithout inferring real life from it.

tonnaree · July 14, 2014 11:16 pm

I try very hard not to express my opinions as fact. And the times when I do blurt out JOHNLOCK IS REAL, I hope everyone understands I'm just being playful.

Schmiezi · July 15, 2014 6:08 am

saturnR wrote:
I don't have a problem with people expressing opinion about the show as long as they don't infer real life from the show. Example: Sherlock thinks that capital punishment is a good thing, therefore Benedict or Mark or Steven must be a supporter of capital punishment in real life.

It's ok to have an option about the show itself wwithout inferring real life from it.

That would lead us to the old question of interpreting: Does it make sense to interpret something exclusively text-based (work-immanently?) or do you need background information on its makers, the time it was produced, the society?

I tend to believe that a TV show should be understandable without knowing anything about its background. But when it comes to deeper analysis, you need to keep in mind who wrote the script, for example.

besleybean · July 15, 2014 6:11 am

And what they have said about this, the characters and The Canon they work from....despite bullying tweets from some so-called 'fans'

Schmiezi · July 15, 2014 6:15 am

Exactly. And considering the fact that the producers are not known to be too honest in interviews.

besleybean · July 15, 2014 6:21 am

The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

tonnaree · July 15, 2014 2:23 pm

There's pudding?
Why wasn't I told this before?!

Harriet · July 15, 2014 5:28 pm

Actually, tonnaree, it's not pudding, it's Spotted Dick.

scnr

Schmiezi · July 15, 2014 6:28 pm

How do we always end up like this?

:-D

Harriet · July 15, 2014 7:01 pm

Because it's tasty? - See, I made a sentence with "because"

Davina · July 15, 2014 7:43 pm

Define 'pudding'!

saturnR · July 15, 2014 9:41 pm

Pudding: Ginormous pie consumed @ xmas. From the root "put" coz you can put a lot of stuffing in pudding. Over time putting mutated into pudding coz people got confused & found pudding to be easier to pronounce - leading to the myth that the root of pudding is pud. Attempts to define what "pud" is have been so far unsuccessful.

Last edited by saturnR (July 15, 2014 9:43 pm)