Are Facts really Opinions?

[Contamenesia]

Are all facts actually only opinions that we accept to be true? Are Facts simply Opinions that we can convince others of via opiniated proof? If so, then is there any actual such thing as Proof? Where is the line between Fact and Opinion? Are all Truths lies or are all lies Truth? What if there are no truths and no lies? If the only reality you can count as real is your own, why are others in it?

With this thread i invite you to think outside of the box, and simply question and discuss these things. Here we question all things around us and ourselves. This thread is only for fun, just to get you thinking. You may begin.

[The Liberated Territories]

lolwut

Facts are testable, provable opinions. How do we know they are provable? If they can be replicated or deducted.

[Contamenesia]

lolwut

Facts are testable, provable opinions. How do we know they are provable? If they can be replicated or deducted.

Is that a fact? or is this simply your opinion?

[The Liberated Territories]

lolwut

Facts are testable, provable opinions. How do we know they are provable? If they can be replicated or deducted.

Is that a fact? or is this simply your opinion?

That is a fact.

[Contamenesia]

Is that a fact? or is this simply your opinion?

That is a fact.

So by your opinion this indeed is fact. Hmm, seems really opinionated to me. ^^

[Scandinavian Nations]

Are all facts actually only opinions that we accept to be true? Are Facts simply Opinions that we can convince others of via opiniated proof? If so, then is there any actual such thing as Proof? Where is the line between Fact and Opinion?

No. Facts are verifiable and falsifiable, and no "fact" should be held to be true with a 100% probability; there's always a possibility that it's wrong.

So, if something might be false, but there is an experiment that could establish if it's true or false, and that's inherent in its treatment, it falls somewhere on the spectrum of factoids, hypotheses, facts, depending on how likely it is to be true.

So, for instance, "Earth's gravity is 9.81 m/s^2" is formulated as a hypothesis, everyone promoting it accepts that it's not quite 9.81, but it's easy to verify and easy to disprove if false. That's a fact, i.e. a confirmed hypothesis, not an opinion.

"A nation should be judged by how it treats its poorest" is pure opinion - there is no experiment that could prove/disprove it. Even actual evidence that nations that treat their poorest badly do much better overall won't change the position of those who hold this view, as it's a moral stance, not a practical theory.

Now, AGW is a case where facts, hypotheses and opinions get mixed up and everyone tries to present their opinion as a "fact", while in reality all there is on the subject is a number of hypotheses with varying degrees of probability of being correct to some varying extent. But science, verifiability and falsifiability, hypotheses, confidence intervals are all way too difficult for the media to deal with; it prefers to trade in absolutes. Opinions are absolutes.

[Contamenesia]

Are all facts actually only opinions that we accept to be true? Are Facts simply Opinions that we can convince others of via opiniated proof? If so, then is there any actual such thing as Proof? Where is the line between Fact and Opinion?

No. Facts are verifiable and falsifiable, and no "fact" should be held to be true with a 100% probability; there's always a possibility that it's wrong.

So, if something might be false, but there is an experiment that could establish if it's true or false, and that's inherent in its treatment, it falls somewhere on the spectrum of factoids, hypotheses, facts, depending on how likely it is to be true.

So, for instance, "Earth's gravity is 9.81 m/s^2" is formulated as a hypothesis, everyone promoting it accepts that it's not quite 9.81, but it's easy to verify and easy to disprove if false. That's a fact, i.e. a confirmed hypothesis, not an opinion.

"A nation should be judged by how it treats its poorest" is pure opinion - there is no experiment that could prove/disprove it. Even actual evidence that nations that treat their poorest badly do much better overall won't change the position of those who hold this view, as it's a moral stance, not a practical theory.

Now, AGW is a case where facts, hypotheses and opinions get mixed up and everyone tries to present their opinion as a "fact", while in reality all there is on the subject is a number of hypotheses with varying degrees of probability of being correct to some varying extent. But science, verifiability and falsifiability, hypotheses, confidence intervals are all way too difficult for the media to deal with; it prefers to trade in absolutes. Opinions are absolutes.

Wow, i like your opinion there. it is very interesting.

[Scandinavian Nations]

Oh, it's *that* kind of thread...

[Torisakia]

The real question here is: are people's opinions still opinions if their opinions are shit?

But seriously, a fact is an opinion. It's just an opinion that can be verified.

[The Grim Reaper]

A thing is a fact if it remains consistent with other facts.

In the formal sciences, these facts are invented abstractions - axioms that govern a sign system. A sign system is valid if it is entirely factual, and everything composed within it remains factual. Hence why you can have Euclidean and non-Euclidean geometry, for example - similar sign systems, but one rejects a particular axiom.

Then you apply these sign systems to observe the world, and can constitute material facts by extrapolating from your social facts, derived from the sign system. Hence, gravity on earth is 9.8 m/s, because we use the sign system of mathematics to define the term '9.8', the term 'metres', the term 'seconds', and the relationship between all three and the physical world. The signs represent physical facts because they remain consistent with the physical world - and, with recent adjustments to international standards, change to reflect changes in those physical facts.

[Contamenesia]

The real question here is: are people's opinions still opinions if their opinions are shit?

But seriously, a fact is an opinion. It's just an opinion that can be verified.

In my opinion this opinion is interesting,

You see in my opinion, you are trying to prove your opinion to me using what in your opinion are facts while i have just put in question, in my opinion, the validity of all facts. You see, in my opinion this thread is not so simple. it is here to challenge what you think is fact or opinion, what is right or wrong. but this is just my opinion.

[Pope Joan]

Opinions are like bellybuttons; everybody has one.

But some are "better" than others, for the reasons cited by Scandinavian Nations. We can consense on them as a society, they can form a helpful way in which we relate to the world of people and things. To make the distinction clear, we call these "facts".

[Plumia]

Well, this is getting into objectivity vs subjectivity, but...

Essentially, the defining trait of a Fact is that it is Truth from an unbiased viewpoint, e.g; "When an unmodified paper napkin touches water, it will get wet". This is always observable Truth, and is objective rather than subjective. Opinions may reflect something like Truth, but the difference is in the bias, e.g; "God is real" is a statement that's (thus far) impossible to evaluate from an unbiased viewpoint, making it subjective and not Truth for everyone and/or everything.

However, it's important to consider that much of what we know of the world (and universe) around us is based on perception. What "wet" means is accepted by essentially everyone, but that's a human bias and not necessarily a consideration applicable to the world around us; further, what constitutes a "napkin" may vary as well, so the Truth of a specific wording (re: unmodified paper napkins touching water will get wet) is not completely objective, even if the observable natural phenomenon occurring as described is objective proof of its Truth.

So, essentially...all Facts as we know them really are Opinions shaped by human cultural understanding and perception, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate their Truth in an objective sense.

[Australian rePublic]

Facts are facts
Opinions are opinions

[Sinophia]

In this thread: Solipsism gone wild

[Sun Wukong]

OP seems to think that just because it is possible to challenge the definition of "fact" that they are justified in doing so.

Knowledge is demonstrable, facts are verifiable. If you aren't using that definition, you're engaging in willful obscurantism.

[Plumia]

In this thread: Solipsism gone wild

I agree, so would that make this fact-by-consensus (backed by observable evidence that aligns with the definition of solipsism) or still opinion?

[Contamenesia]

Well, this is getting into objectivity vs subjectivity, but...

Essentially, the defining trait of a Fact is that it is Truth from an unbiased viewpoint, e.g; "When an unmodified paper napkin touches water, it will get wet". This is always observable Truth, and is objective rather than subjective. Opinions may reflect something like Truth, but the difference is in the bias, e.g; "God is real" is a statement that's (thus far) impossible to evaluate from an unbiased viewpoint, making it subjective and not Truth for everyone and/or everything.

However, it's important to consider that much of what we know of the world (and universe) around us is based on perception. What "wet" means is accepted by essentially everyone, but that's a human bias and not necessarily a consideration applicable to the world around us; further, what constitutes a "napkin" may vary as well, so the Truth of a specific wording (re: unmodified paper napkins touching water will get wet) is not completely objective, even if the observable natural phenomenon occurring as described is objective proof of its Truth.

So, essentially...all Facts as we know them really are Opinions shaped by human cultural understanding and perception, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate their Truth in an objective sense.

Another interesting opinion.

However, in my opinion, i must question the Validity of Truth. In one's opinion, your Truth here could easily be considered an opinionated lie, at least in my opinion. If so, are all Truths lies, or are all lies Truth? what if there are no truths and no lies?

[Sun Wukong]

Well, this is getting into objectivity vs subjectivity, but...

Essentially, the defining trait of a Fact is that it is Truth from an unbiased viewpoint, e.g; "When an unmodified paper napkin touches water, it will get wet". This is always observable Truth, and is objective rather than subjective. Opinions may reflect something like Truth, but the difference is in the bias, e.g; "God is real" is a statement that's (thus far) impossible to evaluate from an unbiased viewpoint, making it subjective and not Truth for everyone and/or everything.

However, it's important to consider that much of what we know of the world (and universe) around us is based on perception. What "wet" means is accepted by essentially everyone, but that's a human bias and not necessarily a consideration applicable to the world around us; further, what constitutes a "napkin" may vary as well, so the Truth of a specific wording (re: unmodified paper napkins touching water will get wet) is not completely objective, even if the observable natural phenomenon occurring as described is objective proof of its Truth.

So, essentially...all Facts as we know them really are Opinions shaped by human cultural understanding and perception, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate their Truth in an objective sense.

Another interesting opinion.

However, in my opinion, i must question ithe Validity of Truth. In one's opinion, your Truth here could easily be considered an opinionated lie, at least in my opinion. If so, are all Truths lies, or are all lies Truth? what if there are no truths and no lies?

"When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

[Contamenesia]

OP seems to think that just because it is possible to challenge the definition of "fact" that they are justified in doing so.

Knowledge is demonstrable, facts are verifiable. If you aren't using that definition, you're engaging in willful obscurantism.

So this is your opinion of my opinion? hmm. interesting. you seem to think, in my opinion, that by simply challenging what you know, i must therefore think that it is wrong..... i do not agree with this opinion, but that is my opinion.

[Plumia]

Well, this is getting into objectivity vs subjectivity, but...

Essentially, the defining trait of a Fact is that it is Truth from an unbiased viewpoint, e.g; "When an unmodified paper napkin touches water, it will get wet". This is always observable Truth, and is objective rather than subjective. Opinions may reflect something like Truth, but the difference is in the bias, e.g; "God is real" is a statement that's (thus far) impossible to evaluate from an unbiased viewpoint, making it subjective and not Truth for everyone and/or everything.

However, it's important to consider that much of what we know of the world (and universe) around us is based on perception. What "wet" means is accepted by essentially everyone, but that's a human bias and not necessarily a consideration applicable to the world around us; further, what constitutes a "napkin" may vary as well, so the Truth of a specific wording (re: unmodified paper napkins touching water will get wet) is not completely objective, even if the observable natural phenomenon occurring as described is objective proof of its Truth.

So, essentially...all Facts as we know them really are Opinions shaped by human cultural understanding and perception, but that doesn't necessarily invalidate their Truth in an objective sense.

Another interesting opinion.

However, in my opinion, i must question ithe Validity of Truth. In one's opinion, your Truth here could easily be considered an opinionated lie, at least in my opinion. If so, are all Truths lies, or are all lies Truth? what if there are no truths and no lies?

It's my opinion that this is Fake Deep as hell, bro.

[Sun Wukong]

OP seems to think that just because it is possible to challenge the definition of "fact" that they are justified in doing so.

Knowledge is demonstrable, facts are verifiable. If you aren't using that definition, you're engaging in willful obscurantism.

So this is your opinion of opinion? hmm. intersting. you seem to think, in my opinion, that by simply challenging what you know, i must therefore think that it is wrong..... i do not agree with this opinion, but that is my opinion.

Your opinion is wrong.

That's not an opinion.

[Sinophia]

I'd say that it's not even really Solipsism because at least solipsists believe they exist. But if all facts are opinion, it is merely OP's opinion that they exist. This presents a quandary - how can you be unsure of your own existence, or more properly, consciousness? It's nonsense, contradicted by the very reality of being aware. You cannot have an opinion about whether you are self-aware and doing something consciously - you either are or you aren't.

[Contamenesia]

So this is your opinion of opinion? hmm. intersting. you seem to think, in my opinion, that by simply challenging what you know, i must therefore think that it is wrong..... i do not agree with this opinion, but that is my opinion.

Your opinion is wrong.

That's not an opinion.

So that is your opinion then?

[Sun Wukong]

Your opinion is wrong.

That's not an opinion.

So that is your opinion then?

That's a fact.