Can opinions ever be classed as facts?

[zaly]

I was wondering, is there ever a point where a majority opinion can be classed as a fact?
I know opinions are subjective, but there often seems to be confusion between the two.
For example, best and favourite are two words that (I think!) describe the actual best, and the persons individual favourite.
In terms of TV Shows I watch, my favourite is Chuck, but I am aware that other shows are in fact better in terms of quality.
So something can be your favourite, but not the best, and vice versa - for example I am aware that Mad Men is very well made, but personally I don't like it very much. But, I do respect that it is probably a fact that Mad Men is a better show than Chuck, even though this can't necessarily be proven.

I may be going off on a tangent, but I was wondering what people think about this?
Surely, there has to be cases where opinions can be turned into facts. For example: Anyone is free to prefer Troll 2 over The Dark Knight, but surely everyone can agree that The Dark Knight was the better made film, regardless of whether they liked it.

(just to clarify, I'm not trying to change anyones opinions - people are free to like and hate whatever they want, I'm just wondering if people think majority opinions can ever be classed as facts, as otherwise people could argue that nothing could be classed as better than something else even when - in my opinion - it should at least be a possibility)

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Facts are objective. Opinions are subjective. The problem is that when you have an opinion based entirely on fact, it's no longer subjective.

An informed or rationalised opinion has more weight than a uninformed opinion; but both suffer from personal bias - so can't be taken as facts.

While people are fully entitled to hold opinions, the problem comes when they project them as implied facts. YouTube and other social media sites often show this as people mistake freedom of speech with freedom of condemnation.

The former is a right given by society, the latter is bigotry against society.

(Goddamit, I must have got up on the wrong side of bed this morning )

 

[pliusmannn]

No, opinions is supported by facts. Mass opinions, like movie/game ratings is the overall look for how much people (voters) this movie/game/book/another work of art was worth the price, you can read the reviews and see practically the same opinion mirroring. About opinions which come from don't understanding the world for example: creationism, can only be supported by facts, which are very shady in this example. Sometimes, you can like a very distant type of music for example grindcore, it is music liked by very few people, and when they start bringing it to the light like posting in forums, their rating created only from people who like this music goes down, because it was advertised for people who dislike and maybe even hate it. I this best opinion is oneselfs opinion, and if it is supported by facts then others probably would accept it too, strong opinions while they are not truth, are still opinions.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Well...they are very often mistakenly called facts. Otherwise, not really.

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

NO they cannot. Opinions are formed from interpretations of facts. The only people that think they're are opinions are true facts are people who are full of themselves and FOX "News"

 

[Bobbity]

No. If an opinion is quantifiable, then it becomes fact. If it is universally held but not quantifiable, then it is still an opinion.

Effort should be made to make sure that the two are differentiated, because of the consequences that can result if they are not - [HEADING=1]Looking at you, Fox News.[/HEADING]

 

[Scabadus]

That's a good example, but you must remember that it's only your opinion which show is better than another. You may think that editing and camera work makes a 'better' show, another person may think acting is the only requirement, a third would say that plot is essential. Regardless of which show these people prefer to watch, they could all have different opinions on which is 'objectively' (deliberatly the wrong word) better.

Now here's an example where it gets interesting: what if we get a huge database of votes for things such as acting ability, plot quality and the like and convert all these votes into a giant number. Could it then be said that the show with the biggest number is definatly the best?

Oh who knows, I'm too tired to think hard about it.

 

[thahat]

yes, they can be. if you look at it this way:
facts, are only facts until proven wrong, it happens all the time with theories in chemistry/mathematics/engineering things taken to be facts often happen to be opionions, and get changed to other 'facts' which are silently just opinions.
thus, facts are nothing more then solidified oppionions.
e.g. 'the sky is blue' .yes to us it is, but if you had different eyes it would be not blue, but red, or even green!

 

[Catchy Slogan]

Facts are objective. Opinions are subjective. The problem is that when you have an opinion based entirely on fact, it's no longer subjective.

An informed or rationalised opinion has more weight than a uninformed opinion; but both suffer from personal bias - so can't be taken as facts.

While people are fully entitled to hold opinions, the problem comes when they project them as implied facts. YouTube and other social media sites often show this as people mistake freedom of speech with freedom of condemnation.

The former is a right given by society, the latter is bigotry against society.

(Goddamit, I must have got up on the wrong side of bed this morning )

This is pretty much what I was going to say, but put a hell of a lot more eloquently than I ever could.

 

[Yvl9921]

The only kink in the argument here is "Truth by agreement." If you believe in this, then there can be objective opinions. "Uwe Boll is a bad director," "The Virtual Boy was a flawed piece of technology," and that sort of thing. When there's more consensus on an opinion than there is on a fact, such as evolution or the moon landing, is it really fair to consider it merely an opinion anymore?

 

[Flatfrog]

The existence of opinions is a fact. So, for example, whether something is a 'great' work of art is a matter of opinion, but it's also a fact, determined by the majority opinion. (That means that the facts can change, depending on the change in opinions).

When I'm working on something creative, and I ask for people's opinion on it, I have to accept their opinion as a piece of data. Whether I choose to act on that opinion is up to me as the creator, but it is a fact that I have to take into consideration. (I have a saying: 'criticism is always right, advice is usually wrong')

Daniel Dennett made a similar point when talking about how we can study people's internal feelings and perceptions ('phenomenology') scientifically. He says that in order to do it, we have to take their actions and words as data, while accepting that they may be wrong ('heterophenomenology'). It's like being an anthropologist studying another culture's religious beliefs without accepting them.

 

[Fanta Grape]

Well let's say I said Citizen Kane was worse than... I dunno, me picking my nose for five minutes in camera. Surely, that's wrong? Well not really, but maybe you can break it down into objective parts. Let me put it this way.

I'm defining worse as quality defined by factors considered significant in the film industry.

Then a factor can be lighting.
Is there appealing lighting in both films?
Was that lighting intentional?
Did it appeal to an emotion?

Defining emotion as a mental response in a human.

Was that emotion negative or positive?
What was the intent of the emotion?

Did all above factors point towards Citizen Kane as a better movie?

and if we keep going like this, we might be able to get somewhere... maybe.

But we could never prove something is more enjoyable than the other

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

But, nobody would ever express an opinion based entirely on fact in the form of an opinion, because it would sound stupid.

Pardon me for being facetious, but do you really think people won't say something that sounds stupid?

Weathermen and Newsmen are often paid to sprout convenient truths as opinions. It's comforting to their audiences. Politicians will often talk on a War on Waste, "Where we, as the Party with Ideas, want to bring an end to Corruption".
Now, saying "Corruption is Bad" as an opinion tends to follow your idea, so I'd suggest slapping them.

See also; Abuse is Bad, We Need More Jobs, We Want Less Tax, It Might Be Sunny Tomorrow.

 

[zaly]

You all make interesting points, as I think its a difficult question, with arguments for both yes and no.
I think that the thing that annoys me sometimes about opinions and facts is when people state things to the ultimate extreme, for example stating that Transformers 2 is the worst film ever made, which is someones opinion, but they are stating as a fact, as if it actually was the worst film ever made. (in my opinion - it was ... OK, it was entertaining enough but was very average and could have been much better)

I still think that there has to be a point, at which even if it is comparing the two most extreme cases of something, there has to be a point at which something can be proven better.
If you give conditions to the comparison, does that make it alright?
I'm thinking far too much into this now but does winning awards classify as evidence of betterness?
Can peoples acting be stated as being better than someone elses, or is it just opinions?
Surely it is a fact that Mickey Rourkes acting in "The Wrestler" is better than Tommy Wiseaus acting in "The Room"? (even though Tommy Wiseau probably does not share that opinion!)
If acting performance can be ranked as fact, why not other things?
I am probably caring far too much about this but I find it interesting

 

[BlueMage]

In short, no. And it doesn't matter how many people hold an opinion - if it ain't true, it ain't true. Belief does not shape reality.