posted
There's a lot of talk going on around here recently about issues of truth, right, and wrong. And I think a lot of the conversations get muddy because of a confusion of concepts.
The concepts of "fact" and "opinion" are taught as opposites in schools (at least they were in my day). At some point we were given a list of sentences and told to categorize them as facts or opinions, with no possibility allowed for "neither fact nor opinion."
Most dictionary definitions of "fact" I've seen include an element of truthfulness in the definition. See this for an example.
Most definitions of opinion speak of belief or conclusion, which necessitates that there is a one who believes or one who forms a conclusion. See this.
Facts and opinions are not opposites, but rather concepts that can refer to each other.
For example, "Dagonee believes homosexual couples should be able to receive the civil benefits of marriage" is a fact which contains truth about my opinion. "Dagonee believes homosexual couples should not be able to receive the civil benefits of marriage" is neither a fact nor an opinion, though it refers to an opinion.
Here's where it gets more complicated. Both statements above are what I will refer to as "factual statements." They can both be evaluated for truthfulness by someone with the appropriate knowledge. If true, then the statement will be properly categorized as a fact.
Let's look at another type of statement. Suppose Einstein said, "There is a cosmological constant in general relative whose effect is to reflect mathematically the static nature of the universe." He later said, "The introduction of the cosomological constant was a mistake." Were he alive today, he might say, "There is a cosmological constant that affects whether the universe expands, contracts, or stays constant." (Note: I'm using quotes mainly to partition the statements; I am not asserting Einstein ever said these.)
All of these statements are opinions - they reflect Einstein's belief about the cosmological constant. But they are also factual statements, or at least potentially so. It's possible that one day we will know the value of the cosmological constant and will be able to evaluate the truthfulness of these statements.
A lot of disputed things represent disputes about factual statements. For example, "There is a God with characteristics X, Y, and Z," "There is a God with characteristics W, X, and Y," and "There is no God." These are factual statements about which many, many people have opinions.
Similarly, "The Universe is 10,000 years old" and "The Universe is 15 billion years old" are both factual statements about which many people hold opinions. Here, though, many people do not consider one side or the other to be an opinion, based on the amount of positive knowledge or proof each side possesses. However, this really shifts the opinion definition to individual pieces of evidence and interpretations of the evidence. It becomes possible to rate the strength of an opinion, referring not to how strongly it's held, but to how strongly it is rooted in positive evidence. But this rating of strength will likely be subject to the same types of dispute.
I'm not sure what all this means, but the key issue is the concept of opinions about factual statements and the fact that many things called "opinions" are really factual statements.
quote:Both statements above are what I will refer to as "factual statements." They can both be evaluated for truthfulness by someone with the appropriate knowledge.
I think calling them "factual statements" is likely to make people think they contain elements of truth.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is the difference between stating a factual statement and holding the opinion that said factual statement is fact an important distinction to make?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah it felt pretty awkward writing it, but I couldn't think of a better way of phrasing it that accurately conveyed my question.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Edit: It is important if only because too many terms have associated elements that are not necessarily integral to the statement. Factual does not indicate, for example, truthful but many people would argue otherwise.
quote: Is the difference between "stating a factual statement" and "holding the opinion that said factual statement is fact" an important distinction to make?
quote: Similarly, "The Universe is 10,000 years old" and "The Universe is 15 billion years old" are both factual statements about which many people hold opinions.
I wouldn't have considered either of those to be factual statements.
"The Bible says that the Universe is 10,000 years old" is a factual statement.
"Scientific measurements show the Universe to be 15 billion years old" is a factual statement.
Of course, that's just my opinion. Posts: 4625 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: For example, "Dagonee believes homosexual couples should be able to receive the civil benefits of marriage" is a fact which contains truth about my opinion. "Dagonee believes homosexual couples should not be able to receive the civil benefits of marriage" is neither a fact nor an opinion, though it refers to an opinion.
I don't get why the second statement is not an opinion on Dagonee's opinion.
I also don't get how both of these statements can be factual statements when you've just said statement number two is 'neither a fact nor an opinion'.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
According to the definitions you are using, Dag, if person A says "The Universe is 10,000 years old," the statement itself is not accurately described as his opinion. Rather, person A's opinion is that the statement "The Universe is 10,000 years old" is a true statement, that the factual statement is, indeed, fact. But is this an important or even useful distinction to make?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
All the definitions that I've looked at in the various online dictionaries in the last couple of minutes describe 'fact' as something that 'exists' or whose truthfulness can be verified. Thus, I don't understand how you can have incorrect or false factual statements.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If my understanding is correct, then a "factual statement" would be a proposition stated as fact. Or possibly a statement regarding fact. Either way the "factual" refers to the subject of the statement, not the accuracy of the statement.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: If my understanding is correct, then a "factual statement" would be a proposition stated as fact. Or possibly a statement regarding fact. Either way the "factual" refers to the subject of the statement, not the accuracy of the statement.
Ah. Like 2 + 2 = 5 or something? The facts in the problem are correct but the conclusion is wrong?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think calling them "factual statements" is likely to make people think they contain elements of truth.
I'm open to alternatives. But the point is the statement is one that is either true or false. "Sideways" was a good movie is pretty much just an opinion, although factual statements could be used to support or denigrate that opinion. Suppose you have a bag. "There are 6 pennies in this bag" is a factual statement about the bag. "The bag is pretty" is an opinion about the bag.
quote:Is the difference between stating a factual statement and holding the opinion that said factual statement is fact an important distinction to make?
Yes, if only because there are factual statements not currently subject to proof that people hold opinions about. It therefore becomes necessary to categorize such statements when deciding how to respond.
quote:I wouldn't have considered either of those to be factual statements.
"The Bible says that the Universe is 10,000 years old" is a factual statement.
"Scientific measurements show the Universe to be 15 billion years old" is a factual statement.
Of course, that's just my opinion.
Actually, both of those are facts, at least according to my definition, assuming they are each qualified slightly:
"According to some interpretations, the Bible says that the Universe is 10,000 years old."
"Scientific measurements combined with the assumption of a constant speed of light show the Universe to be 15 billion years old."
The particular intepretation of the Bible or the evidence supporting the assumption of the constancy of lightspeed are both subject to additional statements about the supporting evidence, of course.
This illustrates why the distinction is important. We can pop over to Answers in Genesis and then to a variety of science sites and prove that each of these revised statements is true. Each of these statements form the basis for many poeple holding their opinion on the age of the Universe.
But the statement "The age of the Universe is X <units>" for some value X in some units would be a fact if the correct value of X and the correct unit were entered. Each of the versions of your revised statements in my original posts could be that factual statement.
And that's why the distinction is necessary. Some term is needed to refer to statements that could be facts. "Candidate facts," maybe? It's ugly, but it might work.
quote:I don't get why the second statement is not an opinion on Dagonee's opinion.
It might be an opinion, if expressed by someone else. Suppose two people have read all my posts except those about civil gay marriage. It would be reasonable to guess that I oppose it, based on my statements about my religious beliefs. If someone had seen some of my first amendment posts, though, it would be reasonable to guess that I support it. In either case, the statement made by such a person would be an opinion, even if they guessed correctly. This is because it is a belief not based on positive evidence. However, either statement could be true. Therefore they are factual statements or candidate facts, depending on which term we go with.
Technically, of course, it's possible I'm lying about what I believe. Depending on how deep one wants to get into epistemology, all statements are at best opinions. But frankly, the "we can't know what we know" discussions bore me.
quote:According to the definitions you are using, Dag, if person A says "The Universe is 10,000 years old," the statement itself is not accurately described as his opinion. Rather, person A's opinion is that the statement "The Universe is 10,000 years old" is a true statement, that the factual statement is, indeed, fact. But is this an important or even useful distinction to make?
Yes, I think it is. Because failing to do so can make it difficult to even parse which statements are worth having certain types of discussion about. When I argue that the first two Star Wars prequels were pretty good, I'm not arguing about something that might be "true." But in the course of doing so, I will provide reasons, some of which will be facts, to "support" my opinion. When I argue that evolution is likely, my intent is to provide evidence to support the truth of that statement.
The distinction also makes it easier, maybe even possible, to have discussions like the recent one about whether the Universe could be 10,000 years old and God not be a liar.
quote:All the definitions that I've looked at in the various online dictionaries in the last couple of minutes describe 'fact' as something that 'exists' or whose truthfulness can be verified. Thus, I don't understand how you can have incorrect or false factual statements.
That's the whole reason for my post, Storm. Because there is a different between a fact and something that might be a fact, yet they also contain many characteristics in common.
Using set theory, Call U the universal set of statements. Call C the universal set of factual statements or candidate facts. Call F the universal set of facts. F is a subset of C, which is a subset of U.
In data modeling terms, I'd have a entity called factual statements and an attribute called truth. Factual statements with truth = 1 would be facts.
quote:Either way the "factual" refers to the subject of the statement, not the accuracy of the statement.
posted
Saxon75 beat me to it. My math teachers would refer to these as "statements" but not factual ones, unless they could be proven.
A statement that is "stated as fact" can be true or false, but it is only a factual statement if it can be proven true. As such, the term "factual statement" is inherently loaded language.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
As I recall, when I learned fact vs. opinion (in elementary school?) we had the option of fact and opinion. As in, "I believe the earth is round."
A statement that is inherently *just an opinion* is one that people could have different views on. Like whether Sideways is a good movie. You can't conclude that everyone will agree.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I understand Dag's intent, that is correct.
I state "2 + 2 = 5." I have not phrased this in the form of opinion, but rather as a stated fact.
As much as I may have wished this was the case when balancing my checkbook, it is incorrect and therefore not a fact as defined by Webster and others. Or, for purposes of inventory, an incorrect fact (a fact that is not correct, truthful or accurate is not a fact). In fact.
If I said "I believe 2 + 2 = 5," this would be my opinion until or unless it can be so verified as to enter the realm of fact.
I think we're discussing two issues:
Presentation - how do I present or represent the statement in my argument
The nature of the statement - fitting the literal definition and standards as a fact or fails the test and must be classified as an opinion.
Truth, as applied to the opinion - is that the actual opinion ascribed to the holder? Do I really, for example, believe pizza to be the bane of all existence?
posted
The other interesting sidenote is that people will disagree on which statements can be included in the factual statement or candidate fact category. For example, those who believe in universal absolute morality will believe that statements such as "It is immoral to eat animal flesh" are factual statements or candidate facts. Those who do not believe in universal absolute morality will not consider those statements to be factual statements or candidate facts.
This, I think, may be the most important element of the distinction I'm trying to draw. I care little about the actual name, and much more about the underlying concept. I think this distinction gets pretty quickly lost in many discussions.
quote: However, either statement could be true. Therefore they are factual statements or candidate facts, depending on which term we go with.
If something could be true, but we don't know, or don't agree that it is, then it's just a 'statement' to me.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:fitting the literal definition and standards as a fact or fails the test and must be classified as an opinion.
But there's a qualitative difference between the opinion "the earth is round" and the opinion "Sideways is a good movie." So much so that I think different words are needed in situations when the distinction is important.
You present x statement as fact and I challenge the grounds on which you present this statement as fact.
Hence the infamous, "if we accept this to be true and we consider the argument in this light, it follows that this statement must be true and therefore a fact."
Position A: It is a fact that killing is always wrong. Position B: To evaluate an action as "wrong" is a judgement based on subjective viewpoints. Ergo, the fact is invalid.
posted
The term we use is the "truth value" of the statement.
For example, a statement alone can have either a true or false value. It's possible to construct a statement that cannot be true, in that it is an inherent contradiction: "I am lying" is a terse version of this kind of thing. More common is: I exist AND I don't exist. The AND makes the statement impossible, since both sub-statements can't be true at the same time.
The opposite of an inherently false statement is a tautology: "God exists or God does not exist." This statement is true, regardless of the truth value of the substatements.
I think maybe the issue of opinion needs clarifying, though, because I don't see fact as being the opposite of opinion.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, I think it is. Because failing to do so can make it difficult to even parse which statements are worth having certain types of discussion about. When I argue that the first two Star Wars prequels were pretty good, I'm not arguing about something that might be "true." But in the course of doing so, I will provide reasons, some of which will be facts, to "support" my opinion. When I argue that evolution is likely, my intent is to provide evidence to support the truth of that statement.
I don't understand what you are saying here at all.
I think the root of my lack of understanding is that I don't get why "The Star Wars prequels are good movies" is not a factual statement. It's certainly stated as fact.
And I don't understand why the two statements "The Star Wars prequels are good movies" and "Evolution is likely" are different in terms of "truth." Both are stated equally firmly (using "is" and "are") and both are equally subjective ("good" and "likely").
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:A lot of disputed things represent disputes about factual statements. For example, "There is a God with characteristics X, Y, and Z," "There is a God with characteristics W, X, and Y," and "There is no God." These are factual statements about which many, many people have opinions.
These cannot all be factual statements if a factual statement by definition contains truth. "There is a God" cannot be true at the same time as "There is no God". So you can say the first two or the last one of these statements may be true, and therefore may be factual. Also, it's possible none of them could be true; there could be a God that doesn't have characteristics W, X, Y or Z.
Like saxon75, I do not get what the point of making these distinctions is. It is definitely semantic - I'm just not sure it's useful. Posts: 1423 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If only because a person intent on winning an argument is just as likely to misrepresent a fact in order to document a "win" rather than participate in a meeting of the minds intent on meaningful discussion.
That said, "God exists" is no more a factual statement than "God doesn't exist" because neither statement, although presented as fact, can be verified as truthful or accurate.
Which leads us to the subjective nature of proof and human perception.
Person A--let's call him Alan--says, "The Star Wars prequels are good movies." This is a factual statement. It is Alan's opinion that the statement is true. What difference should separating the factual statement from the opinion make in my conversation with Alan about the worth of the Star Wars prequels?
Person B--let's call him Barry--says, "Evolution is likely." This is also a factual statement. It is Barry's opinion that the statment is true. What difference should separating the factual statement from the opinion make in my conversation with Barry about evolution?
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
"Jake Lloyd should play Ender" versus "Haley Joel Osment should play Ender" versus "They'll both be too old by the time the movie gets made" is hardly a semantic discussion, rather it is vital to the future of Hatrack -- nay, the world!
posted
Trevor, you're using a different definition of "factual statement" than Dag is. That's not what his point is.
Posts: 4534 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fact is ground in the idea of what is made or done by God. That we even think that we can engage with facts is a result of having the divine power of thought and the world being sprung from the thought of God, and I think that's a suspect road that gives its way to science and bad law.
I think we true opinions of the world, as distinct from facts. And the only thing we have facts concerning are those things that we make. We can have facts concerning tools, and the extent to with we make everything a tool or a making of man, we introduce new facts. But the big things, the things that we don't make or manipulate, we opinion is all we have, but that's quite a lot.
posted
"That we even think that we can engage with facts is a result of having the divine power of thought and the world being sprung from the thought of God, and I think that's a suspect road that gives its way to science and bad law."
Man, you went to Berkeley. You can do better than that.
People invoke "Truth is God" only when they don't want to have to start justifying themselves.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not saying that I believe it, I'm saying that that's what a fact is. Fact from the latin facere, to make or to do, and the noun form was concieved with the sense of a making or doing of God, that's why it can't be otherwise.
I'm also saying that God being the guarantor and origin of facts poses huge problems.
posted
Glenn, what that categorization schema fails to account for is statements that are not true or false not because they are self-contradictory but because of their nature.
quote:I think the root of my lack of understanding is that I don't get why "The Star Wars prequels are good movies" is not a factual statement. It's certainly stated as fact.
And I don't understand why the two statements "The Star Wars prequels are good movies" and "Evolution is likely" are different in terms of "truth." Both are stated equally firmly (using "is" and "are") and both are equally subjective ("good" and "likely").
Saxon, the form of the statement is incidental. Likely may be subjective, but only in the sense that one person might define a specific range of probabilities as likely than another person would, whereas a movies "goodness" is inherently undefinable. Change "is likely" to "has a large body of scientific evidence in its support."
quote:These cannot all be factual statements if a factual statement by definition contains truth. "There is a God" cannot be true at the same time as "There is no God". So you can say the first two or the last one of these statements may be true, and therefore may be factual. Also, it's possible none of them could be true; there could be a God that doesn't have characteristics W, X, Y or Z.
Again, I'm distinguishing between "factual statements" and "facts." And I've expressed a willingness to alter the term "factual statement." According to my usage, as defined above, these are all "factual statements" in a way that "that flower is pretty" is not.
Let's try to define the types of statements as sets:
S: The set of all statements. All members of any set below is a member of S.
C: The set of all statements that, if true, would be facts.
U: The set of all statements that cannot be true or false (not dependent on are ability to prove). U is the complement set of C (Any member of S must be in either C or U).
O: The set of all opinions. A member of O may be in either C or U.
OU: The set of all opinions that cannot be true or false. All members of OU are members of U.
OC: The set of all opinions that could be true or false.
F: The set of all facts. All smembers of F are members of C.
OofC: The set of all opinions about one or more statements in C. All members of OC are members of O and members of OC.
CofO: The set of all statements in C about one or more statements in O. All members of CofO are members of C.
FofO: the set of all facts about opinions. All members of FofOare members of F.
quote: I'm not sure what all this means, but the key issue is the concept of opinions about factual statements and the fact that many things called "opinions" are really factual statements.
I'd argue that many (most) of the things we call facts are actually opinions.
As far as any argument about whether a movie is good or not goes, these statements depend on personal opinion. A person can state the reasons for their opinion as criteria, but another person would have to agree on those criteria, and also whether the movie meets those criteria. That's where the term "subjective" comes in.
We've used the term "subjective," but so far, we haven't used "objective." I think (my opinion) that those terms are clearer than "fact" vs. "opinion," because they haven't devolved into colloqial expressions.
Could we say a fact is an objective truth, while an opinion is a subjective truth?
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
By the way, the above list is a quick go at it. I expect there are errors.
I'm trying to end up with only four undefined terms: statement, fact, opinion, and truth (with false defined as not true, and truth not depending on our ability to verify, but on the nature of the statement. My intent is that "There is a God" is a member of C.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Glenn, what that categorization schema fails to account for is statements that are not true or false not because they are self-contradictory but because of their nature.
I assume that by "their nature" you mean the same as what I'm calling the "truth value" of the statement.
"The world is flat" has a truth value of "false."
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Could we say a fact is an objective truth, while an opinion is a subjective truth?
If you are referencing those terms from the perspective of the statement, not the maker of the statement.
It comes back to whether "There is a God" is, if true, an objective truth? Whereas many statements about God might very well be subjective. And I know that's horribly unclear, so I'm going to go pick up a package and try again.
quote:I assume that by "their nature" you mean the same as what I'm calling the "truth value" of the statement.
"The world is flat" has a truth value of "false."
No, what I meant was closer to subjective/objective. But I'm not happy with those terms because there's a difference between subjective/objective truth and subjective/objective knowledge that I don't think is fully appreciated by many people.
posted
Yes, and I'm pretty comfortable with that distinction (knowledge/belief). Maybe the problem is perspective. I'm trying to look at not what someone knows, believes, or thinks about it, but rather what is. Which I think is why I zeroed in on the "factual statement/candidate fact" concept.
quote:Let's try to define the types of statements as sets:
S: The set of all statements. All members of any set below is a member of S. C: The set of all statements that, if true, would be facts. U: The set of all statements that cannot be true or false (not dependent on are ability to prove). U is the complement set of C (Any member of S must be in either C or U). O: The set of all opinions. A member of O may be in either C or U. OU: The set of all opinions that cannot be true or false. All members of OU are members of U. OC: The set of all opinions that could be true or false. F: The set of all facts. All smembers of F are members of C. OofC: The set of all opinions about one or more statements in C. All members of OC are members of O and members of OC. CofO: The set of all statements in C about one or more statements in O. All members of CofO are members of C. FofO: the set of all facts about opinions. All members of FofOare members of F.
I like this analysis, but I think we can do better. For one thing, let's do away with "statements" and instead talk about "propositions" as in logical propositions. A "statement" as understood as any human language based utterance is poorly defined, and leads to this false dichotomy of allowing the possibility of something that is neither true nor false.
In order to talk about logical propositions, there must be some theory-of-everything this is based on, i.e. the conceptual atoms and a semantic interpretation for every logical statement.
Let us posit that there exists a objectively real theory G (consisting of atoms and interpretation) that is capable of interpreting certain propositions. As a Christian, I believe that G is capable of assigning an interpretation (true or false) to ANY proposition. However I will also allow for the fact that this is an issue of faith, and so this may NOT exist. Even if not, I think most people, atheists included, would say that there is some objective reality, but it may not be capable of interpreting every proposition. In even the most extreme case though, subjectivity cannot be subjective if we want to have logical consistency (e.g. if "nothing is objectively true", then is the proposition "nothing is objectively true" objectively true?), so G must exist even if it is only capable of interpreting a few things.
So we know that there exists at least one proposition P which is interpreted in G as either true or false. If a proposition is true under G, then it is a Fact. Any propositions that are not interpreted under G are inherently subjective. If G interprets every proposition, then each proposition is either a fact or its inverse is a fact.
Now, consider any individual person A. A, working in the same logical system, holds certain axioms A to be true. These axioms contain the fundamental truths that are part of this person's worldview, as well as this person's mental interpretation of different words and concepts. Now, for any proposition P, we know from Godel's Incompleteness theorems that if A is consistent, either A proves P, A proves ~P, or A cannot prove or disprove P. The way we interpret this is that if A proves P, then A holds P as an opinion. If A neither proves nor disproves P, then A does not have an opinion of whether P is true or not. (An interesting side note of this explanation for opinions is that we know from Godel's theorems that A cannot prove or disprove the consistency of A, so under the above interpretation, if a person has a consistent worldview, they would never know for certain whether they were completely consistent or not!)
Now, if A holds an opinion that is false under G, then we would say A has an incorrect opinion. However, there is no way to prove that A's opinion is incorrect unless we were to know parts of G. Of course, A may hold opinions of what G's interpretations are, but cannot inherently use it.
Furthermore if G does not exist, then any two people may have different axioms and come to different conclusions, and neither would be able to say one is correct or not. However, what is possible regardless of whether G exists or not is to point out inconsistencies: such as if A completely understands B (i.e. A knows B), A can attempt to prove a contradiction starting from B in an attempt to show B that B is inconsistent.
So the relation between Fact and Opinion is inherently tied to the scope of what is objectively true or not. If G is "complete", then there are a lot of Facts out there. In fact, no person could even have as many opinions as the number of facts that would exist without being inconsistent (in other words, it is impossible for any one person to believe everything that is objectively true at the same time while still being consistent). If G is "incomplete", this still may be the case, but it may also be the case that it is possible to believe everything that is objectively true. Furthermore, and perhaps more importantly, anything that a person thinks is by definition an opinion, even if they seem to KNOW it to be true. However, their opinions can either be true, false, or neither depending on how they match up to G.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
