Interesting idea of yours - given that scientific 'facts' are simply a concensus of opinion as to the nature of a particular event. A fact cannot be obsolete, yet science is a field which involves ongoing revision of what we 'know'.
Can opinions ever be classed as facts?
- Thread starter zaly
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oh by the Sun's eternal light, have we lost sight of what a fact is?
Fact n. An event in nature.
Examples:
~ It is, according to my computer's clock, 13:24 PDT.
~ My thermometer reads 67 degrees, Fahrenheit
~ Kent Brockman announced, And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.
The more steps you get from the original observation, the less reliable the opinions and derived truths are. For example:
~ My thermometer could be malfunctioning.
(I, the first hand observer have to trust in my measurements being accurate, or have a second thermometer)
~ I could have misread my thermometer.
~ I could be willfully lying.
(You, the second-hand observer have to trust that I am adept at reading my thermometer, and have no reason to lie)
Further information can lead us to derived facts, e.g. Today was a temporate day for early May in San francisco (we just had a heat wave, and yesterday's blustery winds did much to cool things down). One could go to meteorological sites and look up San Francisco to get the facts necessary to derive this information.
Opinion is generally personal. It's a cold day. A visiter from Minneapolis may find the weather hot, while someone from Santa Fe may find it rather cold.
Political opinion usually is in the form of something like There are too many abortions in the US today. When Jon Kyl said 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does is provide abortions, he coached it as opinion, but no that's a misrepresentation of fact, otherwise known as a lie.[footnote]I'm pretty sure Jon Kyl believes (present tense) his exaggerated claim about Planned Parenthood, that is to say, he wants it to be true beyond the rational ability to accept it is otherwise. That makes it no less false, nor any less his intent to perpetuate that false believe to others, ergo it remains a lie.[/footnote]
Very often, editorial opinion is based on false facts, e.g. Studies show violence in video games correlates to increased juvenile crime, ergo we should regulate violent video games.
A proper reading of this would be something like If studies were to show a significant correlation between consumption of violent video games and an increase in juvenile crime, and we had cause to believe regulations on violence in video games might reduce such crime, then we should regulate video games. However, most people don't parse things out this far or this clearly.[footnote]And yes, crime is down, and peer-reviewed studies don't show any correlations between playing violent video games and juvie crime or violence...or any crime or violence, really.[/footnote]\
238U.
Fact n. An event in nature.
Examples:
~ It is, according to my computer's clock, 13:24 PDT.
~ My thermometer reads 67 degrees, Fahrenheit
~ Kent Brockman announced, And I, for one, welcome our new insect overlords.
The more steps you get from the original observation, the less reliable the opinions and derived truths are. For example:
~ My thermometer could be malfunctioning.
(I, the first hand observer have to trust in my measurements being accurate, or have a second thermometer)
~ I could have misread my thermometer.
~ I could be willfully lying.
(You, the second-hand observer have to trust that I am adept at reading my thermometer, and have no reason to lie)
Further information can lead us to derived facts, e.g. Today was a temporate day for early May in San francisco (we just had a heat wave, and yesterday's blustery winds did much to cool things down). One could go to meteorological sites and look up San Francisco to get the facts necessary to derive this information.
Opinion is generally personal. It's a cold day. A visiter from Minneapolis may find the weather hot, while someone from Santa Fe may find it rather cold.
Political opinion usually is in the form of something like There are too many abortions in the US today. When Jon Kyl said 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does is provide abortions, he coached it as opinion, but no that's a misrepresentation of fact, otherwise known as a lie.[footnote]I'm pretty sure Jon Kyl believes (present tense) his exaggerated claim about Planned Parenthood, that is to say, he wants it to be true beyond the rational ability to accept it is otherwise. That makes it no less false, nor any less his intent to perpetuate that false believe to others, ergo it remains a lie.[/footnote]
Very often, editorial opinion is based on false facts, e.g. Studies show violence in video games correlates to increased juvenile crime, ergo we should regulate violent video games.
A proper reading of this would be something like If studies were to show a significant correlation between consumption of violent video games and an increase in juvenile crime, and we had cause to believe regulations on violence in video games might reduce such crime, then we should regulate video games. However, most people don't parse things out this far or this clearly.[footnote]And yes, crime is down, and peer-reviewed studies don't show any correlations between playing violent video games and juvie crime or violence...or any crime or violence, really.[/footnote]\
238U.
You are all coming up with interesting ideas, but I suppose I should clarify my original question. I understand that all opinions are not facts, and the majority should never even be considered so, but my question was more of a "Is there a line at which an opinion can become a fact?"
I completely understand that the majority of opinions should remain simply as opinions, but in extreme cases, in my opinion we should be able to definitively state something is better than something else.
Like I said, only in extreme cases I think this should apply, but I was wondering if anyone else thinks this line exists.
My point is that if the only way we judge quality is based on opinions, something can never be proved superior.
For ( a ridiculously extreme) example, in my opinion, Portal 2 is a very good game.
Also, (an imaginary) someone could have the opinion that the barely working game demo I made for my university course is a very good game.
Surely it is a fact that Portal 2 is a better game, as if you compare the two on every conceivable factor, it comes out better in every possible way.
Now the imaginary stalker I have could have the opinion that my game was better than Portal 2, and is free to continue thinking so, but it remains a fact that it isn't.
Does anyone else agree that we should be able to state these things as facts, or should it never be able to be proven, as it is only opinions?
I completely understand that the majority of opinions should remain simply as opinions, but in extreme cases, in my opinion we should be able to definitively state something is better than something else.
Like I said, only in extreme cases I think this should apply, but I was wondering if anyone else thinks this line exists.
My point is that if the only way we judge quality is based on opinions, something can never be proved superior.
For ( a ridiculously extreme) example, in my opinion, Portal 2 is a very good game.
Also, (an imaginary) someone could have the opinion that the barely working game demo I made for my university course is a very good game.
Surely it is a fact that Portal 2 is a better game, as if you compare the two on every conceivable factor, it comes out better in every possible way.
Now the imaginary stalker I have could have the opinion that my game was better than Portal 2, and is free to continue thinking so, but it remains a fact that it isn't.
Does anyone else agree that we should be able to state these things as facts, or should it never be able to be proven, as it is only opinions?
I would say that you can break things down in terms of quality and come to a conclusion of if something is inherently better than something else. For example, Team Fortress 2 is in every way superior to ET on Atari. I suppose someone could possibly hold a contrary opinion, but this is all semantics. TF2 is better than ET and everyone knows it. It might as well be a fact.
If an opinion (that is a hypothesis or conjecture) is shown to consistently predict facts in the future, it becomes a theory, meaning it accurately models facts. This is a form of truth.ChrisSmith24 said:
Something can only truly shown to be superior by measurably quantifiable means. Portal 2 is a longer game than Portal. Portal 2 includes more game elements[footnote]that is, elements with which puzzles are built[/footnote] than Portal 1 does.. This does not equate to Portal 2 is better than Portal 1 unless you specifically define better as longer, or as with more game elements or both.
Nope. Artistic merit, being a purely subjective issue, remains opinion. It may be a popular opinion (e.g. Portal 2 was well received by reviewers.) It may be the opinion of persons of import or reverence (e.g. John Blow, Shigeru Miyamoto, President Obama and Pope Benedict XIV all believe Portal 2 is a good game and would recommend it to their friends and family), but none of these things makes the quality of Portal 2 fact, or truth.
238U.
Opinions are opinions and facts are facts.
The only way they cross is when an opinion has the backing of evidence and factual data.
It does NOT work the other way around.
(Unless, of course, you're abusing the effect of post-modernism, but that's not the same OR right.)
The only way they cross is when an opinion has the backing of evidence and factual data.
It does NOT work the other way around.
(Unless, of course, you're abusing the effect of post-modernism, but that's not the same OR right.)
Well, it is a fact that it is their opinion. 
And at least some opinions are based on that person's interpretation of facts.
But many facts are based on that person's interpretation of reality, which may not even exist in the first place.
So we're all fucked.
And at least some opinions are based on that person's interpretation of facts.
But many facts are based on that person's interpretation of reality, which may not even exist in the first place.
So we're all fucked.