There are usages of the fact/opinion distinction that I think are pretty sensible. In defamation law, you need to make a false statement of fact to defame someone. You can defend yourself against a charge of defamation by arguing that what you said was true, but also by arguing that it was an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact.
It's hard to nail down just how this works, but verification is definitely a big part of the story.
Here's a way to put it as a challenge. Do you think we shouldn't punish people for falsely saying other people have sex with children? Or do you think we should punish people for falsely calling other people assholes? If you think the status quo is fine--yes, punish people for calling people pedophiles, but don't punish people for calling people assholes--then you will probably end up recreating something a lot like the fact opinion distinction in justifying that distinction.
But I mean that clearly doesn't seem like the right account of what a fact is. What things you should be allowed to sue someone for falsely claiming in defamation law is different from the collection of things that are facts.
To be clear, I agree with the overall thrust of your piece. I think the worst thing about how the distinction is often presented is that it basically invites people to conflate epistemology and metaphysics. Because we can't make a compelling case for some claim (epistemology) it's not a fact, and so it's neither true nor false (metaphysics).
I admit "metaphysics" is used in many ways, but "p is not a fact, and so its neither true nor false" will often be a paradigmatically metaphysical claim. E.g., there is no fact (yet) about whether there will be a sea battle tomorrow, so "there will be a sea battle tomorrow" is neither true nor false.
That's why I said "there are usages". Just as I don't want the elementary school teachers correcting you in a context where "fact" just means "truth", I don't want you correcting the jury instructions in a defamation case.
What do you think is the purpose of the education system? To teach people abstract philosophy? Or to teach them things that might potentially be of practical use in life - assessing whether a statement is potentially defamatory, or understanding the structure of a newspaper. I agree that the fact/opinion dichotomy breaks down pretty quickly when examined as a matter of abstract epistemology or metaphysics or whatever, but there is also a real thing that courts hearing defamation cases and newspaper editors are trying to do, and I think those practical endeavors have a better claim on the words than the philosophers do.
When I explain this to adults, they usually get it and agree but sometimes think that it's still a useful concept to teach kids, like the Bohr Model of the atom or something. (I think it's bad and dangerous to teach kids.)
Who is the hypothetical student here, who knows what “denotative language” and “objective evidence” are, but needs some help understanding the words “fact” and “opinion”?
> We are told “It is a statement that is neither true nor false. Or it may feel true for some, but false for others.”
> Now, first of all, something cannot be neither true nor false and also true for some and false for others.
But that isn’t what it says. It says is either one or the other, not both-hence the conjunction ‘or’. It also says it *feels* true for some and false for others, not that it *is* true for some and false for others.
I’m only half way through the article, but I think you’re currently losing a debate with a one page tutoring cheatsheet for small children.
I agree. But this posts seems confused about aesthetics too. First you claim that "the Shrimp Welfare Project’s banner image is beautiful" is widely recognised as subjective. But later you claim that "poo is delicious" is objectively false. Both of these statements are Aesthetic judgements! They're either both objective or neither.
>this definition is self-defeating. “Facts are things that can be verified,” cannot itself be verified
The claim doesn't also say "..and this definition is a fact" because it's a definition, not a fact, so it's not self defeating. It would be self defeating if the quote was "Definitions are things that can be verified" and definitions cannot be verified.
>The true definition is quite a bit more simple and straightforward: a fact is something that is the case.
It's generally vain to chase after the One True Meaning. The words "fact" and "opinion" are used to cover about 7 or 8 meanings...which is a confusion , but not the same confusion.
>They are instead false.
Something can be factive, in the sense of being objectively knowable , and false. Something can obtain as a state of affairs, your preferred definition of "fact", without being knowable, like your mosquito bites. Something can be universally accepted without being true.
>Now, first of all, something cannot be neither true nor false and also true for some and false for others
Something can be subjectively true for Alice and false for Bob, while lacking objective truth and falsehood. Preferences and value judgements are typical examples.
Something can be *improperly* subjective as well...Alive and Bob can't have different but equally valid opinions about the shape of the world.
>Now, maybe the idea is just that an opinion is a statement relative to a speaker. But surely that will not do. A proposition like “I’m in Paris,” will be speaker relative. If I uttered it, it would be false—if someone in Paris uttered it, it would be true. But this doesn’t mean that it’s an opinion, surely
A properly subjective statement is relative to some mental stance of the speaker. Statements that are indexed to objective facts are yet another matter.
I think, broadly, the distinction they are trying to draw out is objective vs subjective/is vs ought. Because of this, saying opinions are just subjective isn't really helpful since middle schoolers don't know what that word means. I understand the distinction can be a bit confused, but they're just trying to convey the broad idea.
> Suppose that last year there were 100 trillion mosquito bites. Then it would be a fact that last year there were 100 trillion mosquito bites; this would be so even if no one was in a position to verify it!
I have to point out that the definition didn't say a fact was a "thing" that is verifiable, it said that a fact is a "statement" that is verifiable.
The crux here is that the distinction between fact and opinion is rhetorical, not epistemological. On the epistemological level, there are only subjective Bayesian probabilities and things that can be reduced to them; there is no distinction between facts and opinions, and those terms don't make sense. But when those probabilities are communicated among humans, you have to introduce all sorts of meta-considerations like common vs general knowledge, social structures (like science) not always reflecting the goals and knowledge-state of their parts (like scientists), etc.
I think that the core perspective of the website is correct, but it's worded in a confusing way because it's basically a Pratchettian "lie to children". Those are not expected to withstand the full force of philosophical critical examination by a smart adult
>Or when you express the view that, say, immigration restrictions are bad for the U.S. economy, they’ll say things like “well you have your opinion and I have my opinion.” But what, precisely, is this supposed to mean
It means they don't have to agree with you. One of the important differences between facts and opinions is that you are going to believe facts, true or things, but are under no such obligation regarding opiniins..admitedly, the elementary school material didn't point that out.
I think this would be more helpful if you considered the goals of the lesson and what the concepts underlying those goals are, in particular the social goals as well as philosophical ones. The goal is to distinguish statements like "Polar bears live at the North Pole", "penguins live at the North Pole", and " Donald Trump is the 47th president" from statements like "penguins are cuter than polar bears" and "Donald Trump is a bad president".
It's important to recognize that some new breakthrough in aesthetics of cuteness would not in fact (ha) change the categorization of these statements.
>It is a fact that there are trees, because it is the case that there are trees.
Presumably someone disputing the fact that there are trees will also dispute the case being that there are trees. I suspect these words are mutually defined and there is no non question begging way of defining what a fact is or what is the case.
> For instance, “There is nothing like an ice-cold bottle of Coke to satisfy a thirst!,” means something like “my thirsts are most—or near-most—efficiently satisfied by ice-cold bottles of coke.”
No, it does not mean that, the original sentence is not speaking of personal preference, it's a universal statement that the best thing to satisfy a thirst, for anyone, is ice-cold Coke. Which you could call an opinion or propaganda.
I typically use fact vs. opinion as being something that is the case vs. a judgement. That means some opinions are facts, though, so high school English teachers will weep and gnash their teeth. Too bad!
> One of them is verificationism—according to which facts are those things that can be verified. This is a totally ridiculous account of what a fact is. Suppose that last year there were 100 trillion mosquito bites. Then it would be a fact that last year there were 100 trillion mosquito bites; this would be so even if no one was in a position to verify it!
That would still be something which *can* be verified, though. In principle, at least. And something which can, in principle, be verified seems like a pretty good definition to me- or at least, not at all refuted by your counter-example.
There are usages of the fact/opinion distinction that I think are pretty sensible. In defamation law, you need to make a false statement of fact to defame someone. You can defend yourself against a charge of defamation by arguing that what you said was true, but also by arguing that it was an expression of opinion rather than a statement of fact.
It's hard to nail down just how this works, but verification is definitely a big part of the story.
Here's a way to put it as a challenge. Do you think we shouldn't punish people for falsely saying other people have sex with children? Or do you think we should punish people for falsely calling other people assholes? If you think the status quo is fine--yes, punish people for calling people pedophiles, but don't punish people for calling people assholes--then you will probably end up recreating something a lot like the fact opinion distinction in justifying that distinction.
But I mean that clearly doesn't seem like the right account of what a fact is. What things you should be allowed to sue someone for falsely claiming in defamation law is different from the collection of things that are facts.
To be clear, I agree with the overall thrust of your piece. I think the worst thing about how the distinction is often presented is that it basically invites people to conflate epistemology and metaphysics. Because we can't make a compelling case for some claim (epistemology) it's not a fact, and so it's neither true nor false (metaphysics).
Huh? Metaphysics is defined by its subject matter, not imponderability.
I admit "metaphysics" is used in many ways, but "p is not a fact, and so its neither true nor false" will often be a paradigmatically metaphysical claim. E.g., there is no fact (yet) about whether there will be a sea battle tomorrow, so "there will be a sea battle tomorrow" is neither true nor false.
Theres no fact about extraterestrial life, but that's not metaphysics.
there's no fact about the axiom of choice , but that's not metaphysics.
Etc.
That's why I said "there are usages". Just as I don't want the elementary school teachers correcting you in a context where "fact" just means "truth", I don't want you correcting the jury instructions in a defamation case.
What do you think is the purpose of the education system? To teach people abstract philosophy? Or to teach them things that might potentially be of practical use in life - assessing whether a statement is potentially defamatory, or understanding the structure of a newspaper. I agree that the fact/opinion dichotomy breaks down pretty quickly when examined as a matter of abstract epistemology or metaphysics or whatever, but there is also a real thing that courts hearing defamation cases and newspaper editors are trying to do, and I think those practical endeavors have a better claim on the words than the philosophers do.
John Corvino did a really good article on this. https://philosophersmag.com/the-fact-opinion-distinction/.
When I explain this to adults, they usually get it and agree but sometimes think that it's still a useful concept to teach kids, like the Bohr Model of the atom or something. (I think it's bad and dangerous to teach kids.)
Who is the hypothetical student here, who knows what “denotative language” and “objective evidence” are, but needs some help understanding the words “fact” and “opinion”?
Yeah that chart made me more unsure of my understanding of all the involved phrases
Also:
> We are told “It is a statement that is neither true nor false. Or it may feel true for some, but false for others.”
> Now, first of all, something cannot be neither true nor false and also true for some and false for others.
But that isn’t what it says. It says is either one or the other, not both-hence the conjunction ‘or’. It also says it *feels* true for some and false for others, not that it *is* true for some and false for others.
I’m only half way through the article, but I think you’re currently losing a debate with a one page tutoring cheatsheet for small children.
> they’ll say things like “well you have your opinion and I have my opinion.” But what, precisely, is this supposed to mean?
They aren't stating an epistemological position. They are telling you nicely that they never want to hear about shrimp again.
I agree. But this posts seems confused about aesthetics too. First you claim that "the Shrimp Welfare Project’s banner image is beautiful" is widely recognised as subjective. But later you claim that "poo is delicious" is objectively false. Both of these statements are Aesthetic judgements! They're either both objective or neither.
Nah he's not confused about that. He didn't say the poo claim being objective was true. He just said it isn't crazy to think it is.
>this definition is self-defeating. “Facts are things that can be verified,” cannot itself be verified
The claim doesn't also say "..and this definition is a fact" because it's a definition, not a fact, so it's not self defeating. It would be self defeating if the quote was "Definitions are things that can be verified" and definitions cannot be verified.
>The true definition is quite a bit more simple and straightforward: a fact is something that is the case.
It's generally vain to chase after the One True Meaning. The words "fact" and "opinion" are used to cover about 7 or 8 meanings...which is a confusion , but not the same confusion.
>They are instead false.
Something can be factive, in the sense of being objectively knowable , and false. Something can obtain as a state of affairs, your preferred definition of "fact", without being knowable, like your mosquito bites. Something can be universally accepted without being true.
>Now, first of all, something cannot be neither true nor false and also true for some and false for others
Something can be subjectively true for Alice and false for Bob, while lacking objective truth and falsehood. Preferences and value judgements are typical examples.
Something can be *improperly* subjective as well...Alive and Bob can't have different but equally valid opinions about the shape of the world.
>Now, maybe the idea is just that an opinion is a statement relative to a speaker. But surely that will not do. A proposition like “I’m in Paris,” will be speaker relative. If I uttered it, it would be false—if someone in Paris uttered it, it would be true. But this doesn’t mean that it’s an opinion, surely
A properly subjective statement is relative to some mental stance of the speaker. Statements that are indexed to objective facts are yet another matter.
I think, broadly, the distinction they are trying to draw out is objective vs subjective/is vs ought. Because of this, saying opinions are just subjective isn't really helpful since middle schoolers don't know what that word means. I understand the distinction can be a bit confused, but they're just trying to convey the broad idea.
> Suppose that last year there were 100 trillion mosquito bites. Then it would be a fact that last year there were 100 trillion mosquito bites; this would be so even if no one was in a position to verify it!
I have to point out that the definition didn't say a fact was a "thing" that is verifiable, it said that a fact is a "statement" that is verifiable.
The crux here is that the distinction between fact and opinion is rhetorical, not epistemological. On the epistemological level, there are only subjective Bayesian probabilities and things that can be reduced to them; there is no distinction between facts and opinions, and those terms don't make sense. But when those probabilities are communicated among humans, you have to introduce all sorts of meta-considerations like common vs general knowledge, social structures (like science) not always reflecting the goals and knowledge-state of their parts (like scientists), etc.
I think that the core perspective of the website is correct, but it's worded in a confusing way because it's basically a Pratchettian "lie to children". Those are not expected to withstand the full force of philosophical critical examination by a smart adult
>Or when you express the view that, say, immigration restrictions are bad for the U.S. economy, they’ll say things like “well you have your opinion and I have my opinion.” But what, precisely, is this supposed to mean
It means they don't have to agree with you. One of the important differences between facts and opinions is that you are going to believe facts, true or things, but are under no such obligation regarding opiniins..admitedly, the elementary school material didn't point that out.
I think this would be more helpful if you considered the goals of the lesson and what the concepts underlying those goals are, in particular the social goals as well as philosophical ones. The goal is to distinguish statements like "Polar bears live at the North Pole", "penguins live at the North Pole", and " Donald Trump is the 47th president" from statements like "penguins are cuter than polar bears" and "Donald Trump is a bad president".
It's important to recognize that some new breakthrough in aesthetics of cuteness would not in fact (ha) change the categorization of these statements.
>It is a fact that there are trees, because it is the case that there are trees.
Presumably someone disputing the fact that there are trees will also dispute the case being that there are trees. I suspect these words are mutually defined and there is no non question begging way of defining what a fact is or what is the case.
This was so bad. For example:
> For instance, “There is nothing like an ice-cold bottle of Coke to satisfy a thirst!,” means something like “my thirsts are most—or near-most—efficiently satisfied by ice-cold bottles of coke.”
No, it does not mean that, the original sentence is not speaking of personal preference, it's a universal statement that the best thing to satisfy a thirst, for anyone, is ice-cold Coke. Which you could call an opinion or propaganda.
I have a vague feeling you're trolling here.
I typically use fact vs. opinion as being something that is the case vs. a judgement. That means some opinions are facts, though, so high school English teachers will weep and gnash their teeth. Too bad!
> One of them is verificationism—according to which facts are those things that can be verified. This is a totally ridiculous account of what a fact is. Suppose that last year there were 100 trillion mosquito bites. Then it would be a fact that last year there were 100 trillion mosquito bites; this would be so even if no one was in a position to verify it!
That would still be something which *can* be verified, though. In principle, at least. And something which can, in principle, be verified seems like a pretty good definition to me- or at least, not at all refuted by your counter-example.