Facts vs. Opinions

[brocks]

And again brocks...only facts can be right or wrong.

I completely disagree, despite the fact that you are the second person on this board to be so sure of it. "The 13th Amendment should be repealed." That's an opinion, not a fact, but it is not just misguided, or uninformed; it's flat wrong. Of course there are some opinions that are just a matter of taste, like "mustard is better than ketchup." But there are others that are provably wrong, like "vaccinations do more harm than good." And you don't even have to take them from completely different categories, like I just did. "Romney is a better person than Obama" is an opinion, and reasonable people could disagree on whether it's right, wrong, or indeterminate. "Hitler was a better person than Gandhi" is exactly the same construction, but any reasonable person would say it is wrong. In my opinion.

[iacas]

Off-topic so moved to its own thread.

Originally Posted by brocks

I completely disagree, despite the fact that you are the second person on this board to be so sure of it. "The 13th Amendment should be repealed." That's an opinion, not a fact, but it is not just misguided, or uninformed; it's flat wrong.

It's not wrong, let alone "flat wrong." It's incredibly stupid, incredibly unpopular, but it's not wrong.

Demonstrate for us the facts which prove that "the 13th amendment should be repealed" is "wrong." You cannot.

Originally Posted by brocks

Of course there are some opinions that are just a matter of taste, like "mustard is better than ketchup." But there are others that are provably wrong, like "vaccinations do more harm than good."

"Vaccinations do more harm than good" is not a statement of opinion any more than "in my opinion, 2 + 2 = 7" is a statement of opinion.

Originally Posted by brocks

And you don't even have to take them from completely different categories, like I just did. "Romney is a better person than Obama" is an opinion, and reasonable people could disagree on whether it's right, wrong, or indeterminate. "Hitler was a better person than Gandhi" is exactly the same construction, but any reasonable person would say it is wrong.

In my opinion.

More people are likely to agree with you that Gandhi is a better person than Hitler, but unless you define "better" in some way that the statement can be made factual, you're out of luck in terms of "right" or "wrong."

"Hitler was responsible for more deaths than Gandhi." Fact. True.

"Hitler was a better person than Gandhi" falls into the same category as "Hitler was more attractive than Gandhi." It's an opinion. Might be a widely held opinion, but some people clearly thought (and still think) that Hitler was a pretty chill guy.

And you know what they say about using Hitler in examples on the Internet. You lose. Or maybe I lose. I can never remember the rules for that crap. Maybe we all lose.

Fact: truth, reality.

Opinion: "a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty."

[brocks]

It's not wrong, let alone "flat wrong." It's incredibly stupid, incredibly unpopular, but it's not wrong. Demonstrate for us the facts which prove that "the 13th amendment should be repealed" is "wrong." You cannot.

I would guess they are pretty much the same facts that lead you to say it is incredibly stupid. [quote] "Vaccinations do more harm than good" is not a statement of opinion any more than "in my opinion, 2 + 2 = 7" is a statement of opinion.[/quote] I disagree. You can cite public health stats or whatever, just as I could cite documented cases of slaves dying of beatings or malnutrition in the 13th amendment example. But some people who are fully aware of those stats may feel that since they keep their children in clean and safe conditions, the chance of them contracting something serious is less than the chance of them having an adverse reaction to the vaccine. And they give more weight to their children's health, than to the increased risk to society as a whole. [quote] Fact: truth, reality. Opinion: "a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty." [/quote] I could go several ways on that. I could say that your definition makes your argument a tautology. I could reject your definition, because many people enjoy complete certainty about some of their opinions. Or I could say that there is never complete certainty, not even in science, and certainly not when many people don't trust CBS or the NYT to report facts accurately. The *fact* is that intelligent people disagree on this, and we are intelligent people disagreeing. It's not a big deal to me, and I seldom find it useful to argue about definitions, but it gets kind of annoying when people act like I'm missing something every eighth grader knows.

[newtogolf]

This is like the "Is there a god" debate.  With enough verbal gymnastics and gyrations you can make anything seem like a fact or an opinion.  The definition of fact is faulty in that it's dependant on words that in themselves can be questioned, who determines truth and what context of reality.  Some consider facts nothing more than universally accepted beliefs that cannot currently be disproven by science or documented historical records.

For some time it was considered a fact the earth was flat and was the center of the universe....now...not so much.

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by brocks

I completely disagree, despite the fact that you are the second person on this board to be so sure of it. "The 13th Amendment should be repealed." That's an opinion, not a fact, but it is not just misguided, or uninformed; it's flat wrong.

It may be morally wrong, but it's not a factual statement to say it should be repealed.  It's not possible for it to be factually incorrect.

Now, it would likely be based on some factually incorrect information...because of how ignorant the position is, but that's another matter.

Brandon

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

For some time it was considered a fact the earth was flat and was the center of the universe....now...not so much.

It was stated as a fact...and it was wrong.

That's the thing...facts are provable and/or disprovable.

Brandon

[newtogolf]

Well at one time it was proven the earth was the center of the universe.  Then we improved our science and discovered the sun was the center, which mean facts can change over time based on new science, improved understanding or introduction of new information.

So if we agree facts can be disproven, then by definition isn't a fact actually a strong universally accepted opinion / belief that can't be disproven by our current science, historical documentation and intellect?

Opinions can also be right and wrong, and are often argued.  When a jury or a judge rules on a case it's their opinion based on facts / evidence presented that determines if someone goes to jail or not.  It's also the right of a defense attorney to question (appeal) the decision / opinion the judge / jury made.  Opinions are challenged all the time in courts as being right and wrong.

Originally Posted by bplewis24

It was stated as a fact...and it was wrong.

That's the thing...facts are provable and/or disprovable.

Brandon

[michaeljames92]

I think the big thing is when people pass their opinion off as a fact. That is something which really annoys me.

[GaijinGolfer]

Originally Posted by michaeljames92

I think the big thing is when people pass their opinion off as a fact. That is something which really annoys me.

^This.  A lot of people like to pass their opinions off as facts and get all bent out of shape when someone disagrees with them.

[zeg]

Quote:

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Well at one time it was proven the earth was the center of the universe.  Then we improved our science and discovered the sun was the center, which mean facts can change over time based on new science, improved understanding or introduction of new information.

So if we agree facts can be disproven, then by definition isn't a fact actually a strong universally accepted opinion / belief that can't be disproven by our current science, historical documentation and intellect?

No, there is a difference. You are correct that a fact can be wrong. I'm going to change the term and use "factual statement" to refer to a fact, whether it's true or not. This is necessary because "fact" is commonly taken to mean a "true fact," so this will hopefully avoid confusion.

A factual statement, as opposed to an opinion, is something that is either true or false. "The Earth is the center of the Universe" is something that, in principle, can be proven with certainty.

This is inherently different from the example above, "Hitler was better than Gandhi." Erik nailed this pretty well---better is a subjective concept, so unless you define precisely what you mean, there is no truth value to the statement. It simply cannot be true or false in the same sense. Gandhi certainly killed fewer people, but Hitler did a much better job building a national economy and mobilizing a military force. (And I'd say that this Hitler example isn't Godwin's law in the usual sense; I think that requires directly equating the other side of the argument to Hitler... but that's just my opinion .)

Quote:

Opinions can also be right and wrong, and are often argued.  When a jury or a judge rules on a case it's their opinion based on facts / evidence presented that determines if someone goes to jail or not.  It's also the right of a defense attorney to question (appeal) the decision / opinion the judge / jury made.  Opinions are challenged all the time in courts as being right and wrong.

There's a subtle difference with regard to this sort of opinion. The court, through the judge or jury, has to reach a decision. It is given facts, in the form of evidence collected and testimony from witnesses/investigators. But fairly strong measures are taken to ensure the factual nature of this evidence. Witnesses are asked to tell what they observed, they're not asked for their opinion of whether the defendant is guilty. In some cases, expert witnesses are asked to interpret technically difficult information, but in general, the evidence consists of factual statements.

The attorneys then try to build a story---a model of what happened---that is consistent with the established facts and which achieves their goal of prosecuting/defending the defendant. They try to convince the judge/jury that their story is the most convincing. In general, this can't be done with certainty, so it is an opinion of sorts. There is logic involved, but it's really not "right or wrong" in the factual sense. It's possible for opinions to be wrong if they're clearly unsupported by facts, but as long as the support for the conclusion exists in facts, it's a question of opinion which is more convincing.

But this is why we have juries: in most cases, a court case cannot be resolved as fact. As unbiased an opinion as to what the likely facts are is needed. Sure, their conclusion might be incorrect---meaning they conclude that an innocent party was guilty or vice versa---but that's really not their job. Their opinion is that, "Given facts XYZ, the most likely conclusion is W."

[zipazoid]

Originally Posted by michaeljames92

I think the big thing is when people pass their opinion off as a fact. That is something which really annoys me.

And when you disagree with them, THEY SAY IT LOUDER.

That's why I stressed the point that it is my opinion the PGA has a weaker field than The Masters. That's what started this topic pivot. Others disagreed with my opinion with their opinion . Some used facts to support their opinion. I used facts to support mine. For example, someone said the PGA usually has the top 50 in the world in the field. That's a fact. The opinion part is concluding that makes the PGA the stronger field. Cuz I could come back with the top 50 doesn't take into account players not in current form; for example, at one point in 2010 Tiger was still top-50, but he was at a point where he couldn't win a Nationwide Tour event (that's an opinion btw) let alone the PGA.

So some opinions do have facts to corroborate, but they're still an opinion. Not right or wrong, just agree or disagree.

I think more rational people can recognize fact versus opinion, and not get all p.o.'d over an opinion. Opinions that differ from mine don't piss me off, they just give me an opening to state hey, I disagree & here's why.

And you know how I know when I've won the argument? When they get pissed off.

[mck]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Well at one time it was proven the earth was the center of the universe.  Then we improved our science and discovered the sun was the center, which mean facts can change over time based on new science, improved understanding or introduction of new information.

So if we agree facts can be disproven, then by definition isn't a fact actually a strong universally accepted opinion / belief that can't be disproven by our current science, historical documentation and intellect?

Opinions can also be right and wrong, and are often argued.  When a jury or a judge rules on a case it's their opinion based on facts / evidence presented that determines if someone goes to jail or not.  It's also the right of a defense attorney to question (appeal) the decision / opinion the judge / jury made.  Opinions are challenged all the time in courts as being right and wrong.

I think your confusing fact with theory.  Facts don't change over time -- theories do

[bplewis24]

Originally Posted by mck

I think your confusing fact with theory.  Facts don't change over time -- theories do

I had typed a long post about something along these lines and when I hit "submit" my internet connection stalled and I lost it.  :(

[newtogolf]

I'm not confusing them, I'm pointing out that a fine line exists between opinions, theories and facts.  Go to a catholic school and take a theology test, there's no reference or qualifier to theory, the existance of God and Jesus is a fact in their teaching.  My overall point is the word "fact" carries a lot of weight but is often abused and mis-used.

Originally Posted by mck

I think your confusing fact with theory.  Facts don't change over time -- theories do

[WWBDD]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Well at one time it was proven the earth was the center of the universe.  Then we improved our science and discovered the sun was the center, which mean facts can change over time based on new science, improved understanding or introduction of new information.

It was never proven that the Earth was the center of the universe.

The sun is the center of our solar system.

I couldn't tell you where the center of the universe is.

[WWBDD]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

My overall point is the word "fact" carries a lot of weight but is often abused and mis-used.

You're abusing the word right now.

[mck]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

I'm not confusing them, I'm pointing out that a fine line exists between opinions, theories and facts.  Go to a catholic school and take a theology test, there's no reference or qualifier to theory, the existance of God and Jesus is a fact in their teaching.  My overall point is the word "fact" carries a lot of weight but is often abused and mis-used.

we create opinions and theories but we discover facts-- I don't see a fine line there at all.  to use your example, God either exists or does not exist--how the catholic school treats that question has no bearing on that "fact"

[k-troop]

I like this thread.  I'll just add this.

1. Facts cannot be wrong.  Statements of fact can be.

2. Opinions can be right or wrong.  However, opinions can be supported by a sufficient weight of evidence, and couched in a certain way, so as to be virtually unassailable.  For example, a biologist's analysis of a DNA profile, properly conducted, can be stated as an opinion with 99.999999999999% accuracy.

3. Some opinions are so widely accepted that reasonable people simply cannot disagree.  The only way to make them "wrong" in the minds of reasonable people is to add some absurd condition, or to take extreme liberties with the English language.  For example, Ghandi is better than Hitler.  The only way to attack this statement is to add something which completely changes the meaning of the original statement, such as "at executing a program of genocide."

I agree that many people here state opinions as truth.  Some of these opinions fall into categories 2 and 3 above; while they might be better categorized as opinion, it's an argumentative distinction, because at the end of the day we all agree with it.  Arguing about these things is pointless, and simply makes the arguer look petulant.  For example:  pointing out that "Ghandi is better than Hitler" is an opinion, not a fact, is a pointless argument for the sake of argument, because it's an opinion with which everyone agrees.  (I will add that, in the context of this thread, it's not pointless--because that's the topic of this thread.)

I also agree that the "loser" of these battles of opinion is typically the person who starts calling names and making personal attacks.  "You must have missed the third grade", "Clearly you can't read", and "Only an absolute fool would think" are all things we regularly see in threads, and they all fall into this category.  Serioulsy, if someone said something that everyone with an IQ above 80 knows is wrong, then you don't have to point it out--the fallacy should speak for itself.  If you feel compelled to type these phrases, then it's because it's not really apparent, but you have run out of legitimate arguments.