Fact vs. Opinion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

kyraofMists -> Fact vs. Opinion (11/14/2006 4:26:57 PM)

I have seen comments that opinions are something that cannot be proven wrong and so therefore no matter what the opinion is it is valid.  However, I think that if something cannot be proven wrong then that is a fact and not an opinion.

The way I understand these words is that facts are indisputable and that if you prove something labeled as a fact to be wrong then it is no longer fact.  On the other hand opinions are disputable and can be proven wrong by facts.

How do you view opinions and facts? 

Kyra



Level -> RE: Fact vs. Opinion (11/14/2006 4:34:45 PM)

Hello kyra. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but that does not make them right nor factual, so I agree with you. And that's a fact [:D].




missturbation -> RE: Fact vs. Opinion (11/14/2006 4:35:59 PM)

Opinions cannot always be easily proved. For example it is my opinion i give the best head in the world. Now unless one man gets head from everyone in the world and says either yes im the best or no im not it would be hard to prove the opinion wrong or right. Plus would his answer not only be his opinion and not actually fact?



Quivver -> RE: Fact vs. Opinion (11/14/2006 4:57:12 PM)

I look at opinions as what they see as their ~real~. 
Doesnt make it my ~real~ though...............



happypervert -> RE: Fact vs. Opinion (11/14/2006 4:58:45 PM)

I far prefer opinions to facts.

When someone states an opinion, at least everyone knows it is personal and not put forth as an indisputable truth.

However, facts are often slippery little critters and can be misinterpreted or falsified to support some idiotic conclusions. The "intelligent design" crowd have their facts; the crackpots who claim 9-11 was actually a government conspiracy have their facts; and  Dubya had facts to support invading Iraq.

So, I'm suspicious of facts . . . unless they are my facts.



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Fact vs. Opinion (11/14/2006 5:04:37 PM)

If I never hear the cliche "Opinions are like assholes" I will be a happy girl.  This gets SO overused, we ALL already know it's true and it's only used as a sly "your opinion sucks but I'm trying to look magnanimous about it" maneuver!!!

Opinions are NOT created equal.  



gooddogbenji -> RE: Fact vs. Opinion (11/14/2006 5:05:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kyraofMists
I have seen comments that opinions are something that cannot be proven wrong and so therefore no matter what the opinion is it is valid.  However, I think that if something cannot be proven wrong then that is a fact and not an opinion.



I believe kyra hates Mormons.

You can state the opposite, but you cannot prove that you do not hate them.  Anything you do afterwards will just be "Oh, she's doing it to show she doesn't hate them."

If you can't prove me wrong, my opinion of you becomes fact.  Should I announce it, or do you want to?

quote:


The way I understand these words is that facts are indisputable and that if you prove something labeled as a fact to be wrong then it is no longer fact. 


A fact is knowledge or information based on real occurences.  If it never happened, it wasn't real.  However, they can still be disputed, to establish truth. 

"The fact is, OJ did it."

This may well be a fact, as it may well have happened.  However, if it did not happen, it is not a fact.  My knowledge of what actually happened does not change whether it is a fact or not.  It doesn't have to be proven, technically (but now we're into "if a tree falls in the forest" territory.)

quote:


On the other hand opinions are disputable and can be proven wrong by facts.



An opinion cannot be proven wrong, because it does not have to be based on fact. 

"Yellow sucks."

Now, this is an opinion.  You can prove that scientists have shown it to be the best colour, it stimulates happiness and sex, and it makes babies stronger.  I still hate it.

"I hate yellow."

This is a fact. (yes, fact, as I actually do hate yellow) but it has no relevance in a public debate.  No one really cares, because it only affects me.

If I want to argue against a room being painted yellow, I have to do so rationally. 

"Yellow will not work (opinion) because the rest of the room is gold (fact) and they clash (opinion presented as fact)"

If people want to dispute this, then they have to dispute the facts, or the opinions presented as facts.  If they say they do not clash, then we look at previous examples of work done in those two, and decide who's irrational opinion to accept.

Ultimately, because we do not know whether most things are facts or not, we are left with theories, which are opinions that are based on facts, and, while not provable, very probable.

And, in fact, that's a fact, in my opinion.

Yours,


benji




Level -> RE: Fact vs. Opinion (11/14/2006 5:17:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gooddogbenji


I believe kyra hates Mormons.

You can state the opposite, but you cannot prove that you do not hate them.  Anything you do afterwards will just be "Oh, she's doing it to show she doesn't hate them."

If you can't prove me wrong, my opinion of you becomes fact.  Should I announce it, or do you want to?


Yours,


benji




But if she really does not hate mormons, then it is a fact. Just because some or all don't believe her does not make them right.
 
 



gooddogbenji -> RE: Fact vs. Opinion (11/14/2006 5:24:22 PM)

I agree, Level.  I am countering her argument that if it is impossible to prove it wrong, it is a fact.

Most things are impossible to prove wrong, but that does not make them facts.

Yours,


benji



Level -> RE: Fact vs. Opinion (11/14/2006 5:30:00 PM)

Errr, I knew that. [&:] Or I know it now lol.



Kalira -> RE: Fact vs. Opinion (11/14/2006 5:44:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kyraofMists

I have seen comments that opinions are something that cannot be proven wrong and so therefore no matter what the opinion is it is valid.  However, I think that if something cannot be proven wrong then that is a fact and not an opinion.

The way I understand these words is that facts are indisputable and that if you prove something labeled as a fact to be wrong then it is no longer fact.  On the other hand opinions are disputable and can be proven wrong by facts.

How do you view opinions and facts? 

Kyra

Opinions are very personal things [:)]

I have many opinions that cover a variety of subjects; all can be backed up by factual evidence; yet, they are called opinions because of the way that I perceive certain things.

A good example of this is my opinion that Shakespear is the best writer ever. While there is plenty of factual evidence to support this; it is still only ONE person's perception. It's personal.








trannysub007 -> RE: Fact vs. Opinion (11/14/2006 5:46:37 PM)

my opinion - Dubya is a bad president.
 
Nobody can say anything that would change my opinion of him as a president, therefore they cannot prove my opinion wrong. Is it then a fact that he is a bad president? i think he is, based on what he has and has not done for this country, but it's still just an opinion.
 
<disclaimer- too tired to form coherent thoughts, but i think my spelling is ok tonight!>




Gauge -> RE: Fact vs. Opinion (11/14/2006 9:07:33 PM)

quote:

For example it is my opinion i give the best head in the world. Now unless one man gets head from everyone in the world and says either yes im the best or no im not it would be hard to prove the opinion wrong or right. Plus would his answer not only be his opinion and not actually fact?


I am humbly offering myself as a test subject to find out if, in fact, you do give the best head. Of course, I will have to test everyone else... just to be certain. And I promise to give you facts and not my opinions.



Lordandmaster -> RE: Fact vs. Opinion (11/14/2006 9:58:12 PM)

The main thing people tend to forget about facts is that they're not always knowable.  Someone could say, "There is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe," and someone else could say, "There is NO intelligent life elsewhere in the universe."  One of those statements is a fact, but who knows which one it is?  Sometimes you hear people overstate this problem by denying that there are any facts at all; that's surely incorrect (or, at least, it relies on a conception of reality that I can't admit), but it often comes close to the truth in practice, because if no one can know what the facts are, it doesn't really matter too much what they may happen to be.



BitaTruble -> RE: Fact vs. Opinion (11/14/2006 10:08:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kyraofMists

I have seen comments that opinions are something that cannot be proven wrong and so therefore no matter what the opinion is it is valid.  However, I think that if something cannot be proven wrong then that is a fact and not an opinion.

The way I understand these words is that facts are indisputable and that if you prove something labeled as a fact to be wrong then it is no longer fact.  On the other hand opinions are disputable and can be proven wrong by facts.

How do you view opinions and facts? 

Kyra


I view an opinion as an unprovable belief and a fact as a proven truth. Not everything called a fact is, in fact, a fact though. ::chuckles:: Further, I believe that it's quite common for opinions to be wrong because while they might not be able to be proven, some of them are quite easily disproved. When someone is able to disprove an opinion, it's perfectly acceptable to tell the opinion holder that their opinion is wrong.

Damn, my own eyes are dizzy from reading that post! ::laughs::

Celeste








Celeste



FirmhandKY -> RE: Fact vs. Opinion (11/15/2006 1:26:05 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kyraofMists

I have seen comments that opinions are something that cannot be proven wrong and so therefore no matter what the opinion is it is valid.  However, I think that if something cannot be proven wrong then that is a fact and not an opinion.

The way I understand these words is that facts are indisputable and that if you prove something labeled as a fact to be wrong then it is no longer fact.  On the other hand opinions are disputable and can be proven wrong by facts.

How do you view opinions and facts? 

Kyra


Kyra,

I think it was in the "Happy Conservatives" thread that I mention that "facts" are not always indisputable, but are certainly the basis for interesting discussions.

Take for example the "fact" that the sun rises every morning in the east.

Fact, yes?

Fact, no.

The earth rotates on it's axis, and the sun stands still.  The "fact" that the sun rises isn't a "fact" at all. 

Carrying it futher ...

Fact: The earth rotates on it's axis

Fact: The sun stands still.

Wrong (or at least incomplete).

The earth not only rotates on it's axis, it revolves around the sun.

The sun doesn't stand still, but is rotating around the galaxy as well.

Of course, if you were or a certain mind set, you could say that the earth doesn't rotate at all, but the entire rest of the universe is rushing madly around it.  You would be wrong, but it has a certain credibility, and could make a pretty good case for it.

Let's go to Merriam-Webster for a definition of "fact:

***

Main Entry:fact

1 : a thing done 
2 archaic   : PERFORMANCE, DOING
3 : the quality of being actual  : ACTUALITY  *a question of fact hinges on evidence*
4 a : something that has actual existence  *space exploration is now a fact* 
   b : an actual occurrence  *prove the fact of damage*
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
  –in fact : in truth

***

Most people use definitions 3 or 4.  But I think definition 5 (a piece of information presented as having objective reality) is really the core of what a "fact" is.

Objectively, and in day to day life, it is a "fact" that the sun rises in the east once a day.  But the reality is a little more complex than that, when you delve into it.

If you follow this thinking to it's conclusion, what you often end up with is the belief that there are no "facts", there is no "one reality", that one thing (or belief) is as good as another, that one opinion is as valid as another.  "Facts" become malleable.

I reject this path, however.

At some point, you have to accept some things as "facts", but always with an open mind as to their interpretation and their level of usefulness.  You have to have core beliefs, based on the ability to operate, think, compare and make decisions.

This, in some circles is called "faith".  Faith in facts.  Faith in religion.  Faith in science, faith in God.  Believing in facts is a belief in "Faith".

An example of "faith" in the belief in "facts" is the study of history.  We all know that Lincoln was the 16th President of the US, don't we?

How do we know this "fact"?

Because you've been taught it.  You have no personal objective ability to preceive it.  You are accepting, on faith, that the history books, teachers and resources that you rely on are correct. 

So how do you know it is "true" (i.e. a "fact")?  You don't, really.  You have to rely on your belief system and experience to give it some level of reliability and probability.

So how do you judge your own belief system, and experience, to figure out what you will choose to have "faith" in?

Historically, there are two basic ways: science and religion, although I believe that there are others.

Religion is a belief system.

Science is a belief system.

As two different systems of belief, I don't think they must be in opposition, and some religious belief systems may reinforce the scientific system, or they may oppose it (which is food for an entire other thread).

Everyone who is alive, and can at least mimimally function in society, has some sort of a belief system.  It doesn't have to agree with mine, or yours, or anyone elses, but if they can operate in the constraints of the physical reality of the world, and in the society in which they live, you can make the statement that their belief system is at least somewhat effective in allowing them to process their sensory inputs, and making decisions that allows them to function.

Deciding on what is a "fact" is therefore a judgement call, based on your own individual belief system.  Since deciding on what a "fact" is, is a judgement call, and an opinion is also a judgement call based on your beliefs ... many people act on opinions as objective "facts", or confuse the two things.

Many political opinions are nothing more than the shared judgement calls of a large group of people.  Whether or not they are valid depends on how they actually operate, or how effective they are in the physical world.

Which brings us to the issue of where I said "I reject this path".

The physical world doesn't make a distinction between facts based on belief systems and opinions.  Reality has a belief system all it's own, and it doesn't entertain anyone else's subjective facts or opinions.  Reality doesn't care if you think the sun rises every morning or the earth stands still in the universe and everything rotates around it.  Our perceptions don't matter to it one whit (well, let me caveat that with the thought that quantum physics has some interesting concepts ...).

The human brain isn't capable of knowing and understanding all the physical reality of the universe.  We use systems of beliefs as short cuts, and simply operate on our best understanding, but the most effective belief systems are the ones that best agree with the one that the universe uses.

Which is the entire point of science: to discover the universe's "belief system"  (I don't think this destroys the possiblity of religion, btw, or a spiritual aspect of existence).

So, in my long winded way, to answer your OP, I think that "facts" are those things that best accord themselves to the physical world, but that human belief systems and shortcomings often prevent us from understanding all the things that go into a "fact", therefore we rely on opinions. 

Opinions are shorthand for how we preceive the world, and are sometimes helpful and in accordance with the universe.  Sometimes they get in the way, and their usefulness varies based on how much utility they have in explaining and allowing us success in the world.

Opinions can change.  Our preception of "facts" can change.  Reality doesn't change.

FirmKY




Zensee -> RE: Fact vs. Opinion (11/15/2006 4:28:00 AM)

I have heard people assert that there is no such thing as a fact.

If they were right, would they disappear up their own conundrum?



sub4hire -> RE: Fact vs. Opinion (11/15/2006 7:08:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kyraofMists

The way I understand these words is that facts are indisputable and that if you prove something labeled as a fact to be wrong then it is no longer fact.  On the other hand opinions are disputable and can be proven wrong by facts.

How do you view opinions and facts? 

Kyra


I look at it this way.  When I was in the second grade I remember an argument that got me detention.  We were talking about the solar system.  I learned there were 9 planets.
At that point in time I got into an argument with my teacher..something about how do you know that...etc.
I'm sure as the years have progressed my verbage has improved a bit more over a 2nd graders.  It went something like. 
How can you be so ignorant to believe we only have 9 planets in our solar system?  Have you been there?  The universe is vast...yet you know it all?

In any event when I was in 2nd grade it was a fact we had 9 planets in our solar system.  Today we no longer have 9 planets.  Pluto has been eliminated.  Two have been added and at last count I believe there may have been 3 more being added.

So, facts are facts until they are proven wrong, then they become opinions.  Which is what everything is to begin with.  Someones opinion who someone else hasn't proven wrong yet.



juliaoceania -> RE: Fact vs. Opinion (11/15/2006 8:16:17 AM)

Where I come from it works like this:

You back your facts with references. If you think something you have said is common knowledge and someone questions it, then you give them a source to look at that supports your "fact".

The problem with this is that someone that is less than intellectually honest will ask you a bazillion questions about your "facts" because they see your propensity to back what you say and want to get you bogged down in the minutiae instead of talking about the meat and potatoes of your worldview. I had this happen to me recently on CM so I left the thread, I was asked about 5 or 6 questions about details within my post and my posts to other people, each question would have taken a few pages to answer. I do not play that game either.

So while I think people should back up their assertions, others should not snowball them in a debate by asking them to define something like a "social program" ... both debate techniques are flawed and dishonest in my opinion (notice I did not call my opinion fact...weg). 



adaddysgirl -> RE: Fact vs. Opinion (11/15/2006 11:47:54 AM)


WARNING! LONG POST!  (but i don't feel so bad after FirmKY....lol)
 
i think we first need to establish that there are different types of opinions before we can determine what is valid and what isn't.
 
1) So let's start with opinions that are just people's personal preferences. These can vary in extremes from very mild to very strong. For instance: 'i think butter pecan ice cream is the best in the world' is just a simple opinion. Someone else might think chocolate is. Or summer is the best season of the year....while someone else might prefer fall. Again, these are just personal preferences and in most cases, others will not dispute such opinions because they are really quite insignificant in daily life.
 
But then you get into the 'bigger' issues....like politics, religion, legalized abortion, the death penalty, etc. If someone simply says 'i believe in abortion'....even though that is just there personal preference, it is bound to strike quite a debate with someone who doesn't share a similar opinion. Same with the other examples i cited.
 
But what is funny about this is....neither is right or wrong.....because neither can be proven right or wrong. They are just someone's views, feelings, attitudes, perspectives, what have you, on a topic and just because they don't mirror your own does not mean they are wrong. Unfortunately, you will always have those who will insist their opinion in such matters is 'the right one' just because it is their opinion....and not because it can be proved in any factual manner. God i hate those people  [:'(]....lol.
 
When i worked with the mentally ill, my cousin worked with the mentally retarded. During a conversation, i mentioned that i thought working with the mentally ill was easier than what she was doing. She disagreed. So who was right? i had my personal reasons for my opinion, and she had hers. So be it. That is when you just have to agree to disagree. Unfortunately there are those who have never seemed to grasp that concept and they will argue ad nauseam to prove their opinion is the only valid one. They will twist things around and put words in your mouth to try to prove their point.....but any intelligent being can usually see it for what it is.
 
But personally, i don't have time for such people....and will not engage in such meaningless debates. As a matter of fact, i never get in discussions about politics, religion, etc, because most people are just out to prove their point and aren't listening to anything else anyway. Who's got time for that?  [:-]
 
2) Then there are opinions that can be disproved only by general consensus but not by any factual data. Ever go to karaoke? Someone gets up and thinks they're the best singer on earth....and everyone there plugs their ears or leaves....lol. Or like a friend of mine who felt he was a terrible singer yet the crowd was quite avid when he sang and always asked for more. Or the female who think she's fat when everyone around her can plainly see that she is thin. Or if a group of 20 people are eating peaches and one states she thinks the peaches are sour and all the rest say they are sweet. By general consensus you can probably conclude that the peaches are indeed sweet....although again, that cannot really be proven by any factual data.
 
Now i don't think most get into big debates about these issues. i think these are the ones that most people just look at and say 'boy, is he/she nuts!'...and then leave it at that...lol. The majority opinion will usually 'rest the case'.
 
3) And lastly, you have opinions expressed as facts, which can easily be disproved by actual facts. For example....'i think the earth is flat'.....an opinion which can easily be disputed. You may choose to believe that but....wrong-o! Or 'i believe peas are orange'. Again, wrong-o! Or 'i believe the major cause of death is abc'...when it can be easily proven that the major cause of death is xyz.
 
Personally, these are the ones i like to debate. Perhaps this is because of my experience in the law enforcement field where nothing is really valid unless you can prove it by hard evidence (and yes, there is circumstantial evidence but there is also a degree of facts, as opposed to mere opinion, even in proving that). Incidentally, at work they call me 'Joe Friday' (just the facts, ma'am, just the facts....lol). And i also tend to get into non-fiction...rather than fiction....and doubt you will find a single fiction book in my home.
 
And perhaps this is why i debated the 'sub vs slave' issue so fervently. When someone makes a statement that 'slaves are more something than subs' as if it were a fact, i want to know where they gathered their evidence for such a statement. And i have yet to even see that such opinions are supported by the majority...or by general consensus. So what exactly is the basis for such an opinion that sounds like a fact?
 
Or even the 'no limits' issue. i will believe anyone on here who says they have no limit because they will die if that is what their Master chooses, whether he is nuts or not, because i cannot prove that this is not true. Whether i believe it's true or not is moot if i can't disprove it in some factual way. But i do take exception when, on the other hand, someone states 'i am no limits but i would not die because my Master so chooses'. Well then....in fact, you are admitting a limit so you are not 'no limits'. Now you may want to believe you are no limits but there is evidence, by your own admission, that you are not. So how do people continue to argue that point? It just behooves me...lol.   (Sorry i had to use this example but it was just so befitting for me [&:] )
 
So not to get off track....these were just some thoughts i had about this subject.  There could be even more things that i didn't think of. 
 
Anyhoo....my apologies for going on and on here. But it's all Kyra's fault anyway....lol.
 
And thank you Kyra for entirely draining my brain on this subject. i fell asleep last night thinking about it. [sm=noway.gif]     Man do i need a life [sm=rolleyes.gif]       (Now would that be just my opinion...or the general consensus?  [:D] )
 
DG
 
 



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875