The Fact/Opinion Distinction

[Valmar]

It is my strong opinion that it is a fact that what is considered "fact" is all far too often nothing more than a strong opinion that one clings to. We humans with our subjective human minds and subjective human senses like to make claims about an objective world that doesn't really exist outside of those subjective senses; that is, said objective world is really a massive, shared illusion. So many are deluded by their senses... and so am I.

See the grave of heavy irony we opinionated, subjective human egos love to subconsciously dig our selves into?

Here's an article with some excellent opinions about the distinction of "facts" and "opinions", and more!

Enjoy!

The Fact/Opinion Distinction - The Philosophers' Magazine

The website of The Philosophers' Magazine.

www.philosophersmag.com

 

[hug46]

Valmar this very much relates to the conversation that we were having last week. I wish to apologise for not replying to your last post in that particular thread. I wanted to, but i got sidetracked by the cynic/Donald Trump thread which took up the limited time that i have for debating (more fool me).
I will read the article and try and re-engage with you later...

 

[pitubo]

I think that we are fundamentally unable to ascertain any ultimate facts. What we can do is to differentiate between various qualities of factuality. Some examples of such qualities could be:

- I think so;
- it was reported on the evening news;
- when I vaped dmt, an entity came to me in hyperspace and said so;
- my univertity teachers says so;
- I have never seen the contrary;
- The Traveler says so;
- my dad's holy book says so;
- I found a scientific paper that details methods to establish it experiemntally;
- god told me so;
- the encyclopedia in the local library says so;
- the more vocal members of my facebook peer group agree about it;
- Terence McKenna said so;
- several peer reviewed scientific papers detail methods to establish it experiemntally and I have verified them by personally repeating these experiments;
- my neighbour who always knows everything says so;
- I read it on wikipedia;
- my aunt whom I am sure of is psychic says that she has had a vision that it is so;
- several peer reviewed scientific papers detail methods to establish it experiemntally and I have made best efforts to critically evaluate (and falsify) both the theory underlying the paper and the completeness of the experimental approach before personally repeating these experiments and scrutinizing my execution of the experiments;
- you can't prove it ain't so;
- mom says so;

When facts are a point of contention, it is usually in a debate. But most of the time, the terms used in a debate are similarly unclear as the facts and this is even more difficult to see.

I believe that we are fundamentally unable to know what the other person says. All we can do is try try to imagine what the other person means to say, based on what we hear. From that we reconstruct what we think that the ther person is actually saying.

 

[dragonrider]

Yes, true, we don't see reality as it 'realy is'.

On the other hand, wouldn't that be an objective fact, then?

If you say "objective reality doesn't exist", is that a subjective statement? A bit of a paradox, because if it's true, it isn't.

But i think the main point about relativity is this: we're all more or less the same. Relativity doesn't mean that there's no objective truth. It means that objective truth depends on perspective.
Your right hand looks like a left hand in the mirror. But that's Always true.
If you take perspective into account, THEN there is objective truth.
We call it intersubjectivity.

Ofcourse that's not completely clear either, but it'll get you pretty far.

Is logic and mathematics objective?
There is debate about this between mathematicians and logicians.
But they'll all agree that at least it is from a human perspective. And we can prove that by making machines that can do math. Maybe these machines merely duplicate the human perspective, but the point is that they'll do so CONSISTENTLY. The same computation, the same input, the same proces, will Always have the same outcome.

That point, that in some cases, the same processes, performed under the same conditions, will Always have the same outcomes, is in a nutshell what intersubjectivity is all about.
So in that sense, objectivity does exist.

If that wouldn't be so, we couldn't be having this discussion, because we simply wouldn't be able to understand eachother.

 

[thymamai]

I like that, Valmar, and I don't wholly disagree. But we humans are also very fragile and come from very humble beginnings and it takes a lot to keep us alive. It takes a foundation of heavy iron and solidified thinking to keep us sane under all the stress of daily affairs, and to keep the system working and the world turning so that we can all live reasonably and practically. Thus facts are essential, imho.

 

[pitubo]

Yes, true, we don't see reality as it 'realy is'.

On the other hand, wouldn't that be an objective fact, then?

If you say "objective reality doesn't exist", is that a subjective statement? A bit of a paradox, because if it's true, it isn't.

These are all presumptions. Even your logic is presumptive. (Please don't take personal offense, these are quite general statements.)

Your right hand looks like a left hand in the mirror. But that's Always true.

Not always. Evidently, not for all people who live under sharia law, as a cruel example.

If you take perspective into account, THEN there is objective truth.
We call it intersubjectivity.

Hmmm... I don't think that is how intersubjectivity is commonly interpreted. But then again, maybe your divergence could be seen as an intersubjective take on intersubjectivity.

Is logic and mathematics objective?

It is often assumed to be.

There is debate about this between mathematicians and logicians.
But they'll all agree that at least it is from a human perspective. And we can prove that by making machines that can do math. Maybe these machines merely duplicate the human perspective, but the point is that they'll do so CONSISTENTLY. The same computation, the same input, the same proces, will Always have the same outcome.

Are you sure that you aren't confusing "mathematics" and "calculations"? The former involves abstract reasoning, the latter mechanically follows an algorithm, however intricate and complex.

That point, that in some cases, the same processes, performed under the same conditions, will Always have the same outcomes, is in a nutshell what intersubjectivity is all about.

Not sure if you are confused here or if I am.

If that wouldn't be so, we couldn't be having this discussion, because we simply wouldn't be able to understand eachother.

We only do so presumptively.

Really, we should even question if we understand ourselves at all. But that's a big and ugly can of worms to get into.

 

[Nathanial.Dread]

Is logic and mathematics objective?
There is debate about this between mathematicians and logicians.
But they'll all agree that at least it is from a human perspective. And we can prove that by making machines that can do math. Maybe these machines merely duplicate the human perspective, but the point is that they'll do so CONSISTENTLY. The same computation, the same input, the same proces, will Always have the same outcome.

Except machines don't do math. They do arithmatic. AFAIK, there has never been a computer-generated proof that wasn't a proof by exhaustion or contradiction.

I've heard math described as 'the study of things that could not possibly be otherwise,' which I think is a nice way to think about it. You can imagine a world where the constant of gravity is greater or lesser, or the speed of light is faster or slower, but it's hard to imagine how it would be possible to have a world where the sum of all the internal angles in a triangle is NOT pi rad.

My distinction between fact and opinion is whether any arbitrary person would, given the same data you have, come to the same conclusion.

If 50 people look at a field and see a tree in it, and all report seeing a tree without communicating with each-other, then, for all practical purposes, the existence of that tree is a 'fact.'
If 10 research teams all inject themselves with morphine and experience analgesia, then the pain-killing property of morphine is a 'fact.'

If you have a psychedelic experience on DMT and no one but you observed the things that you observed or heard the things you heard, despite having smoked DMT themselves, then you cannot claim that your experience is 'factual.'

Blessings
~ND

 

[pitubo]

I've heard math described as 'the study of things that could not possibly be otherwise,' which I think is a nice way to think about it. You can imagine a world where the constant of gravity is greater or lesser, or the speed of light is faster or slower, but it's hard to imagine how it would be possible to have a world where the sum of all the internal angles in a triangle is NOT pi rad.

*coughs*

Look what the mathematicians have come up with: non-Euclidean geometry - where the sum of all the internal angles in a triangle can be greater or lesser than 180 degrees.

If 50 people look at a field and see a tree in it, and all report seeing a tree without communicating with each-other, then, for all practical purposes, the existence of that tree is a 'fact.'

(images linked from: http://waynesword.palomar.edu/faketree.htm )

 

[Nathanial.Dread]

Pit - I should have been more specific, I didn't think anyone would actually get that particular about the geometry. It's hard to imagine how the internal angle of a triangle on a plane could equal anything other than pi rad. Yeah, on different curvatures, the sum of the internal angles will be different, but for a given curvature, you'll consistently get a given angle (if I'm remembering my topology correctly).

As for the tree thing, I actually stand by it. That's how science works. 50 people report seeing the tree so we call it a fact. Then, later in the season, 50 more people take a closer look at it and realize that it's not organic, so we revise our initial assessment and replace it with an updated one. This one becomes out 'fact,' and you may notice that each fact gets asymptotically closer to the 'truth' each time.

I'm a scientist, not a philosopher. I don't really care about the 'absolute, ultimate truth of total reality' or whatever nonsense they're into. I'm interested in what allows me to make predictions, for all practical purposes.

We call gravity a 'fact' even though it could be a bunch of invisible gnomes with strings.

Blessings
~ND

 

[dragonrider]

Is logic and mathematics objective?
There is debate about this between mathematicians and logicians.
But they'll all agree that at least it is from a human perspective. And we can prove that by making machines that can do math. Maybe these machines merely duplicate the human perspective, but the point is that they'll do so CONSISTENTLY. The same computation, the same input, the same proces, will Always have the same outcome.

Except machines don't do math. They do arithmatic. AFAIK, there has never been a computer-generated proof that wasn't a proof by exhaustion or contradiction.

I've heard math described as 'the study of things that could not possibly be otherwise,' which I think is a nice way to think about it. You can imagine a world where the constant of gravity is greater or lesser, or the speed of light is faster or slower, but it's hard to imagine how it would be possible to have a world where the sum of all the internal angles in a triangle is NOT pi rad.

My distinction between fact and opinion is whether any arbitrary person would, given the same data you have, come to the same conclusion.

If 50 people look at a field and see a tree in it, and all report seeing a tree without communicating with each-other, then, for all practical purposes, the existence of that tree is a 'fact.'
If 10 research teams all inject themselves with morphine and experience analgesia, then the pain-killing property of morphine is a 'fact.'

If you have a psychedelic experience on DMT and no one but you observed the things that you observed or heard the things you heard, despite having smoked DMT themselves, then you cannot claim that your experience is 'factual.'

Blessings
~ND

You're basically saying the same thing as i'm saying.

And yeah, i meant arithmatic. But the distinction between math and arithmatic isn't a very sharp one. Most of the time we use mathematical concepts and languages that are both complete as well as correct. You could say that arithmatic falls under 'completeness'. The relation between completeness and correctness is a very important one. There is ofcourse the incompleteness theorem. But if incompleteness would not be an exception, then math would be in trouble. Like if almost every sentence would be paradoxical, then language would be virtually impossible.

Within math and logic there are platonists, who believe that math is about universal trucths. Intuïtionists believe that math is a human construct, but that you can still say things that are objectively seen true, because of things like consistency and completeness, etc.

Anyway, like i said, and what you're saying as well, if you can consistently reproduce results under some very distinct set of conditions, then you can say that something is true under those conditions. Objective/subjective distinction is only about these conditions. Something is subjective if the conditions are very individual, if we cannot recreate the same set of conditions. That's what subjective means.

That's why something like beauty is subjective. Because i can never realy reproduce your experience of listening to music, or watching a movie.

 

[dragonrider]

"There is no objective truth". If that's objectively true, then it isn't. The pressumtion i made is that you would mean this objectively. If it's subjectively true, then it doesn't have to mean that there could never ever be any such thing as objective truth. It could also mean that within a certain field or debate, there is no objective truth.

If you say that there could never ever be any such thing as objective truth, in any interpretation of the words 'objective truth', then you would be making a pretty bold claim.

Would you say that your own existence, with wich i mean the existence of your own counsciousness, is not an undeniable truth to yourself? And if not, isn't it an objective truth then, that one's own existence is undeniable to every person?

 

[dragonrider]

That point, that in some cases, the same processes, performed under the same conditions, will Always have the same outcomes, is in a nutshell what intersubjectivity is all about.

Not sure if you are confused here or if I am.

[/quote]
I don't see what's confusing about this point. It fits perfectly with the description of the term 'intersubjectivity' provided by the Wikipedia-link you yourself made (i supposed you read the article before making a link to it).

What i meant is that often, when we say that something is objectively true, what we realy mean, is that you can predict how someone else is going to perceive something. So to take nathaniels example, if i show you a picture, and i know in advance that you're gonna say that it's a tree, then i can objectively say (in most cases) that it's a picture of a tree.

If someone makes a fake-tree, and you would say "no, it's not a tree, it's a fake tree", this would actually confirm intersubjectivity as a basis for objectivity, because we would know for sure that it was the makers intention to make you think that it was a tree. So the maker then predicted accurately that you would think it was a tree.

If we can accurately predict how something is going to be perceived by others, than the accuracy of that prediction is an objective fact. And the objectivity of that fact is directly related to the content of the prediction.."he's gonna think it's a tree".

We make can predict how someone else is going to experience something (wich i described as a proces), if we know the conditions under wich this 'proces' is taking place (cultural background, being under the influence of substances or not, etc.).

The terms 'proces' and 'conditions' i merely used to illustrate that i think science is based on this principle of intersubjectivity, and in a sense has extended or perfected this principle. Observations take place under strict, standardised conditions. If we then can predict what we think we'll agree on having seen, then it will be called an objective fact.

 

[benzyme]

ssoo.. history is a recurring series of experiences, which are nothing more than opinions. yeah, that makes sense.
especially when one has a narrow time reference.

science is based on probabilities, not opinions, proofs, or facts. just evidence that suggests probability of correlation.

 

[dragonrider]

science is based on probabilities, not opinions, or "proofs", or facts. just evidence that suggests probability of correlation.

Yeah, but i don't think that's where the objective/subjective problem lies.
The problem as being described by valmar, i think, has to do with interpreting the data, to show the probability of correlation (or maybe even cartesion doubt to the extent of doubting the existence of the data as such itself).

So hence intersubjectivity as a basis for objectivity in science. We mean that the probability of correlation is an objective fact if we can accurately predict that anybody would share the same interpretation of the data.

Like for instance the link between smoking and cancer. It's an objective fact, because not only does everybody interpret the given data in the same manner, but if i'd show you these data, and if you would never have seen them before, i would still know in advance that you would as well say that the data indicate there's a probable link.

 

[Valmar]

So... everything about the physical we love to call "objective" is really just intersubjectivity?

So, what is *truly* objective, then? I can take the fact that I exist, as objective. We are all the centre of our subjective worlds, which happen to interpenetrate heavily with those of others.

The materialists, whose philosophy dominates the mindsets of many today, who talk often about the "objective" seem to often be blinded by their biases and blinded to the fact that their opinions, though strong, are still merely subjective and based on their beliefs that their ego has accumulated throughout life, through exposure to culture and a certain upbringing.

Consider the difference between a staunch Western philosophical materialist, and an isolated Amazonian shaman who has a strong, direct connection to nature and the spiritual worlds, and who is heavily relied upon and respected by the tribe they are a part of.

The two worldviews are basically at each extreme of the spectrum. Whose worldview is closer to "Truth", do you believe? And why?


I tend to take the latter side more and more strongly, especially after every powerful psychedelic journey that slowly, but surely, shreds whatever is left of my subconscious materialist leanings, and puts me in stronger contact with the spirits I can somehow sense.

If, according to the Western philosophical materialist worldview, disembodied consciousness is merely an opinion, and that "matter is all there is" is somehow objective fact... why is their subjective experience of the world different to mine?

It has everything to do with what one has experienced, and so accumulated as mental baggage, throughout their life, as I said above. What one learns in their childhood become some of their strongest subconscious beliefs. That said, the "education" indoctrination camps that are called "schools" also have a strong role in instilled certain beliefs about the world onto the impressionable minds of children who are taught to just believe in, defer to, and just blindly trust, the "experts", "science" and the "authorities".

Just another form of brainwashing, mind control, what-have-you. The subjective belief in "objective" this, "objective" that, and official, politically correct and sanctioned "science", becomes little more than a religion.

For example: human-caused global warming. It's basically a religion, heavily touted as "objective fact" with a LOT of political pushing behind it, with tons of emotional arguments and twisted "facts". Because it's pumped at us so heavily, most just fall into line, thinking that if the corrupt political Establishment says it all the time, so loudly and so insistently, it must be true, right? It couldn't just be a huge scam to steal wealth from the poor and worker classes to give to the rich and connected, right?

Well... what if it's not true? Have a look, because the "scientific consensus" (a political buzzword that masquerades as "science") isn't so firm, objective and factual as the media would have you believe. Just opinion pushed strongly as if it undeniable fact.

 

[Valmar]

Yeah, but i don't think that's where the objective/subjective problem lies.
The problem as being described by valmar, i think, has to do with interpreting the data, to show the probability of correlation (or maybe even cartesion doubt to the extent of doubting the existence of the data as such itself).

So hence intersubjectivity as a basis for objectivity in science. We mean that the probability of correlation is an objective fact if we can accurately predict that anybody would share the same interpretation of the data.

Like for instance the link between smoking and cancer. It's an objective fact, because not only does everybody interpret the given data in the same manner, but if i'd show you these data, and if you would never have seen them before, i would still know in advance that you would as well say that the data indicate there's a probable link.

Well said. :thumb_up:

 

[benzyme]

last I checked, religions don't use validated instruments...
consistent data obtained predictably, within acceptable ranges of standard deviations, devoid of bias (because of the use of validated instruments), compared against a control.
that is the essense of pure science, no agenda.

the data doesn't lie, but tinfoil hats may augment tinnitus of the wearer due to biofeedback.

I think this exercise in tautology was conducted in a thread 6 years ago
climate change isn't based on dogma, it can be quantified.
or maybe we all belong to the church of entropy, the religion of thermodynamics.

 

[Old Crow]

You all have a very special place in this world of ours.. and I am very honored your all here with me at times. It would suck to be all alone, but that's what forums are for.

We are all equal parts in the solution, I have mine and I will do my best to give you some space.. because I sure need it, at times...

The fact is for now, I defecate, and the earth continues to feed me and it's hard work having this fleshiness?

Anyway... Please don't disturb these facts about my life in its most basic needs.. or I might just fly away and find a better place to rest my hurting wings.


In between the facts there is a story line that is developing in non-factual time. It rests not on facts but some divine plan, it's our dream unfolding, as it imagines what the facts are not able to explain.

Strange it is how we are all have this dream that facts can't seem to explain in totality is what I'm trying to convey.:?

Science is a limited study that looks for the facts, useful no doubt.

P.S. I keep editing my posts because I like to ruminate on things.

 

[Old Crow]

“You may tell a tale that takes up residence in someone’s soul, becomes their blood and self and purpose. That tale will move them and drive them and who knows what they might do because of it, because of your words. That is your role, your gift.”
Erin Morgenstern, The Night Circus

 

[Koornut]

For example: human-caused global warming. It's basically a religion, heavily touted as "objective fact" with a LOT of political pushing behind it, with tons of emotional arguments and twisted "facts". Because it's pumped at us so heavily, most just fall into line, thinking that if the corrupt political Establishment says it all the time, so loudly and so insistently, it must be true, right? It couldn't just be a huge scam to steal wealth from the poor and worker classes to give to the rich and connected, right?

I assure you that if you go to the scientists themselves - they will never claim anything as objective fact. But they will gladly share with you a mountain of evidence to back up their claims.