# Reading > General Literature >  Learn the Difference Between Opinion and Fact

## Mutatis-Mutandis

I am just astounded at how many people seem to think their opinion is carved in stone. It's really pretty annoying. If you don't like a book/movie/almost-anything, that doesn't mean it is bad.Someone else may enjoy it, and see it as a masterpiece. Just because you don't doesn't mean any more than anyone else's OPINION.

That is all.

----------


## MarkBastable

> I am just astounded at how many people seem to think their opinion is carved in stone. It's really pretty annoying. If you don't like a book/movie/almost-anything, that doesn't mean it is bad.Someone else may enjoy it, and see it as a masterpiece. Just because you don't doesn't mean any more than anyone else's OPINION.
> 
> That is all.


I sort of assume that the only opinion anyone can express is their own, and that everyone knows that. But in case that's not clear, it might help to know that my first infant words were....

_In my opinion, open parentheses_

and my dying words will be...

_close parentheses._

----------


## The Comedian

Sure. Of course opinion & public discourse, the sort of thing that goes on at LitNet, is like a geeky sporting event: it's a scrimmage of wit. So sharpen the edge of the blade of your judgment -- game on!

----------


## JBI

But my opinion is fact...

----------


## The Comedian

> But my opinion is fact...


A false fact, according to my opinion; that I'll grant you.  :Wink:

----------


## JCamilo

In internet forum, a fact is when someone agrees with you, and opinion and someone disagrees, so, I know the difference.

----------


## JacobF

I think it's a lot more important to learn the different between, say, a fact and an inference. Those who know that are a lot more likely to construct intelligent opinions, and I doubt they'd even want to go very far into "this is a masterpiece" and "this is not" discussions. 

If someone believes their opinion is carved in stone, then let them. They may have a well informed and interesting opinion or they may fall flat on their face, regardless of how devoted they are.

----------


## Dark Muse

> But my opinion is fact...


Hahahahaha that was classic, it is what I tell people all the time.

----------


## stlukesguild

But my opinion is fact... 

Except when it conflicts with my own. :Biggrin:

----------


## toboe

My opinion is fact until proven wrong. Go ahead, try me,lol

----------


## Drkshadow03

> I am just astounded at how many people seem to think their opinion is carved in stone. It's really pretty annoying. If you don't like a book/movie/almost-anything, that doesn't mean it is bad.Someone else may enjoy it, and see it as a masterpiece. Just because you don't doesn't mean any more than anyone else's OPINION.
> 
> That is all.


Why do you care what some random strangers think on the internet?

----------


## grotto

> But my opinion is fact...


Only in Canada

----------


## Drkshadow03

> Only in Canada


Ha Ha! Or in his own head.  :Wink:

----------


## islandclimber

my opinions were carved in stone long before I landed on this silly planet..  :Tongue:  they were just waiting for me to come and start the parade...

if you like something and all you say is that you think it is great, please explain the great merits of it, and why it should be considered great.. don't just say I liked it because I like it and therefore no one should comment critically upon it... threads of people just saying "X" work was so amazing! I just loved it! well they're kind of absurd, and serve no purpose besides obscuring threads where people are discussing differing *opinions* on literature/film/etc. that is why people jump in on specific threads that are just the "please come give me affirmation of my opinion that "X" work is great regardless of critical analyses"...

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

Well, you kind of have to do the same thing when saying something is bad, right? When someone says Lord of the Rings is a mediocre film, do they not also have to explain there reasons? It can't work only one way.

----------


## Desolation

> But my opinion is fact... 
> 
> Except when it conflicts with my own.


Some opinions are better than others, eh stluke?  :Wink:

----------


## islandclimber

> Well, you kind of have to do the same thing when saying something is bad, right? When someone says Lord of the Rings is a mediocre film, do they not also have to explain there reasons? It can't work only one way.


agreed, of course they do... well, at least if they feel the need..  :Tongue:

----------


## stlukesguild

But my opinion is fact...

Only in Canada 

 :FRlol:  :FRlol:  :FRlol: 

And thus we now have the perfect retort for anything JBI posts: "Well that may be true in Canada... but in the rest of the world..." :Biggrin:

----------


## stlukesguild

Some opinions are better than others, eh stluke? :Wink: 

Indeed! :Biggrin:

----------


## Mutatis-Mutandis

> agreed, of course they do... *well, at least if they feel the need*..


Nice caveat.  :Thumbs Up:  :FRlol:

----------


## Dipen Guha

Opinion == you know that you know.

Fact== you do not know that you do not know

----------


## Stargazer86

There is a huge difference between opinion and fact which is why it's generally a bad idea to discuss religion and politics with those who do not agree with your own views. In matters where someone's opinion is so strong that they feel it to be fact (which almost everyone does regarding religion and politics) there really is no "winning" nor changing someone else's mind. Even if one is tolerant to another's viewpoint, rarely will they ever agree with it. Just as strong as one person is in thier own convictions, so is the next person. Each individual is "right" and "factual" unto his or her own opinion

----------


## mayneverhave

I am persuaded by opinions backed by argument, logic, rationale, etc.

Arguments that ultimately come down to "Well, that's like your opinion, man", a la The Big Lebowski, are poor arguments and most likely poor opinions.

----------


## Bluebeard

We're leaving out another fundamental word: belief. Opinion regards the purely subjective or responsive: those elements in our reaction to something that distinctly stem from _us_, rather than the thing at hand. Belief is the conviction that some aspect of our reaction is factual: some believe in God, some believe that Shakespeare is the greatest of all writers, almost everyone believes that Italy exists. Fact is the true state of affairs, and is unknowable--really, we just have to accept certain basic assumptions that we have no reason not to believe and go from there. 

The question is whether or not quality in the arts is part of the true state of affairs in the universe or just reactions to that state of affairs.

----------


## wat??

> I am persuaded by opinions backed by argument, logic, rationale, etc.
> 
> Arguments that ultimately come down to "Well, that's like your opinion, man", a la The Big Lebowski, are poor arguments and most likely poor opinions.


How do you recommend we go about basing the things we enjoy on 'logic' or 'rationale'?

Are you suggesting that because a piece of literature is critically acclaimed I should somehow will myself to enjoy it? And if a book is snubbed by the critics I should (logically) snub it myself? 

If you can define for me a real, objective definition of the term "good literature" then I will gladly stop reminding you that it's only your "opinion".

----------


## wat??

"This, then, is the substance of Tolstoy's pamphlet. One's first feeling
is that in describing Shakespeare as a bad writer he is saying something
demonstrably untrue. But this is not the case.* In reality there is no
kind of evidence or argument by which one can show that Shakespeare, or
any other writer, is "good". Nor is there any way of definitely proving
that--for instance--Warwick Beeping is "bad".* Ultimately there is no
test of literary merit except survival, which is itself an index to
majority opinion. Artistic theories such as Tolstoy's are quite
worthless, because they not only start out with arbitrary assumptions,
but depend on vague terms ("sincere", "important" and so forth) which can
be interpreted in any way one chooses. Properly speaking one cannot
ANSWER Tolstoy's attack. The interesting question is: why did he make it?
But it should be noticed in passing that he uses many weak or dishonest
arguments. Some of these are worth pointing out, not because they
invalidate his main charge but because they are, so to speak, evidence of
malice."

- George Orwell

----------


## MarkBastable

Even opinions are based on some kind of rationale. What matters is the extent to which that rationale is explicable to anyone else, and applicable to their own experience.

So, if I say _I don't like Moby Dick_ - that's a fact (because, it's true - I don't like it) but it's also an unsupported opinion and no more or less informative than someone else saying _I like Moby Dick_. There's not much to discuss, really.

If I say, _I don't like books with sailing ships in them, and on that basis I don't think Moby Dick is a good book_, that's a fact, but so specific a prejudice underlies the logic that it can pretty much be dismissed as personal opinion. There's nothing to talk about.

If on the other hand I say, _The symbology of Moby Dick is inconsistent and unconvincing, and the structure of the story is so influenced by Melville's insistence on documenting the whaling experience that its power as a narrative is undermined, and therefore I'd suggest that it's not really a great book, though admittedly an influential one_ - then we have an opinion that can be the basis of discussion. What's worth noticing is that its debatable precisely because there are no facts in that statement - just considered and structured opinion, in a relevant context.

So - I'd say that we can only enter into discourse about books, film, music if we _avoid_ facts. 

What we need to present is _informed_ opinion.

----------


## TheFifthElement

> Even opinions are based on some kind of rationale. What matters is the extent to which that rationale is explicable to anyone else, and applicable to their own experience.
> 
> So, if I say _I don't like Moby Dick_ - that's a fact (because, it's true - I don't like it) but it's also an unsupported opinion and no more or less informative than someone else saying _I like Moby Dick_. There's not much to discuss, really.
> 
> If I say, _I don't like books with sailing ships in them, and on that basis I don't think Moby Dick is a good book_, that's a fact, but so specific a prejudice underlies the logic that it can pretty much be dismissed as personal opinion. There's nothing to talk about.
> 
> If on the other hand I say, _The symbology of Moby Dick is inconsistent and unconvincing, and the structure of the story is so influenced by Melville's insistence on documenting the whaling experience that its power as a narrative is undermined, and therefore I'd suggest that it's not really a great book, though admittedly an influential one_ - then we have an opinion that can be the basis of discussion. What's worth noticing is that its debatable precisely because there are no facts in that statement - just considered and structured opinion, in a relevant context.
> 
> So - I'd say that we can only enter into discourse about books, film, music if we _avoid_ facts. 
> ...


Interesting, I think you've nearly got it though I'd say:



> The symbology of *Moby Dick* is inconsistent and unconvincing,


 and




> the structure of the story is so influenced by Melville's insistence on documenting the whaling experience that its power as a narrative is undermined,


are presented as fact rather than an opinion because the use of the term 'is' implies the statement is irrefutable. Someone else may easily come along and state that in their opinion the symbology of Moby Dick is consistent and convincing and that the story is not influenced by Melville's insistence on documenting the whaling experience and/or that it has no impact on its power as a narrative, and present a reasoned argument as to why it is so. Not me though, I haven't read Moby Dick  :Wink:

----------


## MarkBastable

> Someone else may easily come along and state that the symbology of Moby Dick is consistent and convincing and that the story is not influenced by Melville's insistence on documenting the whaling experience and/or that it has no impact on its power as a narrative, and present a reasoned argument as to why it is so.


Well, yeah - one would hope that they would.

----------


## weltanschauung

the difference between opinion and fact is this:
it is a fact that YOUR (as opposed to MINE) opinion doesnt matter.

----------


## PeterL

> I am just astounded at how many people seem to think their opinion is carved in stone. It's really pretty annoying. If you don't like a book/movie/almost-anything, that doesn't mean it is bad.Someone else may enjoy it, and see it as a masterpiece. Just because you don't doesn't mean any more than anyone else's OPINION.
> 
> That is all.


Are you certain that those people's opinions are not actual fact? The difference between "fact" and "opinion" is shaky, at best. In many cases opinions are facts, and facts are opinions. The difference is mostly a matter of how one expresses something.

----------


## boye

when someone comes to you with the "truth", you 
can pretty much figure he is about to tell a lie

----------


## Paulclem

It's such an important skill to be able to discern fact and opinion, and not be exploited by politicians and journalists. You only need to consider recent reasons for war to see that. A good reading education is crucial.

----------


## Rainyhawaii

I once came across a person on here who thought that the Theory of Evolution was a fact and couldn't understand that it's not proven.

It's not really knowing difference betwixt opinion and fact it's knowing when your opinion is no longer fact....

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> I once came across a person on here who thought that the Theory of Evolution was a fact and couldn't understand that it's not proven.


Oh, look, someone else that doesn't understand the meaning of what a scientific theory is. FYI, Evolution is proven as much as any scientific theory (including gravity) is proven. That evolution happens is a fact as it's been observed in nature as well in labs. The theory that seeks to explain it has made hundreds of predictions that wouldn't have been possible unless the theory was true.

----------


## Buh4Bee

How ironic!

Anyway, MM, I have a tendency to see my opinion as fact as do many, but it is, indeed, almost a talent to be able to admit when your opinion is not a FACT. Being extrememly arrogant sometimes, it is a hard thing to let go.

----------


## PeterL

This thread reminds me of a piece that I wrote several years ago, in which I attempted to define the difference between fiction and non-fiction. The only difference that I could discern was the attitude of the author. 

I won't claim that my opinions are facts, bit I do believe that many things that are commonly taken as fact are simply opinions or conjectures or assumptions, and I'm not referring to religion or anything else that is simply opinion or preference.

----------


## Rainyhawaii

> Oh, look, someone else that doesn't understand the meaning of what a scientific theory is. FYI, Evolution is proven as much as any scientific theory (including gravity) is proven. That evolution happens is a fact as it's been observed in nature as well in labs. The theory that seeks to explain it has made hundreds of predictions that wouldn't have been possible unless the theory was true.


Not in relation to how the human race had come to be the human race. And although it's technically true that you can't prove anything there is still a difference between fact and theory. When a theory becomes 'proven', if you will, it is no longer considered a theory, but becomes a 'fact'. Theories are not as 'proven' as 'facts' are -- otherwise there would be no point in differentiating between the two. "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact." dictionary definition of theory.

----------


## Anton Hermes

> Not in relation to how the human race had come to be the human race. And although it's technically true that you can't prove anything there is still a difference between fact and theory. When a theory becomes 'proven', if you will, it is no longer considered a theory, but becomes a 'fact'. Theories are not as 'proven' as 'facts' are -- otherwise there would be no point in differentiating between the two. "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact." dictionary definition of theory.


If someone wants to demonstrate how lacking their understanding of empirical evidential inquiry is, the easiest way for them to do it is by talking about scientific claims being "proven." The truth is that nothing is really ever "proven" in scientific inquiry. If a hypothesis undergoes many rounds of testing without being disconfirmed, our confidence in its validity increases. However, there's always the possibility that new evidence will force us to change or abandon our old theory for one that explains more of the available evidence.

Evolution by natural selection is a theory, meaning a proposed model of reality that serves as a framework for research. The evidence that supports the theory is copious, and comes from many different scientific disciplines. As a result, the vast, vast majority of scientists and educators consider that to say life on Earth doesn't share common ancestry ---or that biological diversity has nothing to do with differential reproductive success--- is to handwave away a mountain of mutually-corroborating evidence and denigrate the honest hard work of literally millions of researchers.

Facts aren't just theories that graduate to a higher level. The theory of universal gravitation and the theory of the heliocentric model of our solar system are so well supported by the evidence that no one seriously questions them. But our confidence in their validity comes from the amount of testing that they've undergone, and their reliability in predicting future observations.

----------


## qimissung

A scientific theory, is, however, more than "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural..."

In answer to why some things in science that seem to have been proven, but are still referred to as theories:

_
"The origin of this confusion has it's roots in the history of the development of science. When we speak of early, classical physics, we talk about laws, Newton's laws of motion for instance, the ideas have the weight of veracity. After all, the word "law" has a serious and strictly defined meaning in our culture. Back when Newton declared his laws, he believed them to be absolute descriptions of how the universe worked. At the time, they were irrefutable. We now know that his laws are in fact approximations, rules that work when describing motion on the macroscopic scale but which break at the quantum scale.

Since that time, science has gotten warier about describing anything as being absolute. Science, and physics in particular, is a tool to root out the true nature of reality. It can describe only what it observes which may or may not be true in every case. In order to say if something is absolutely true, every single possible case of a particular phenomena must be observed. In a universe as vast as ours, that's completely impractical. Science can say if something is probably true all the time if observations of a phenomena are the same in many cases. This tiny bit of waffling bothers many people who are not familiar with the inner workings of science. Shouldn't something be always true if it is true at all? Science just can't commit all the way to absolute - otherwise it wouldn't be science, it would be faith.

So science has tossed the use of "law" in favor of "theory". This "theory" does not mean "hypothesis" which is a speculation. In this case, think of music theory - definitely not a hypothesis, but a working set of rules that define a body of knowledge."_

Read more at Suite101: Theory vs. Hypothesis vs. Law: Unraveling the Confusion of Important Terminology http://physics.suite101.com/article.cfm/
2 years ago

----------


## PeterL

> when someone comes to you with the "truth", you 
> can pretty much figure he is about to tell a lie


Is that a fact?

----------


## JCamilo

> Not in relation to how the human race had come to be the human race. And although it's technically true that you can't prove anything there is still a difference between fact and theory. When a theory becomes 'proven', if you will, it is no longer considered a theory, but becomes a 'fact'. Theories are not as 'proven' as 'facts' are -- otherwise there would be no point in differentiating between the two. "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact." dictionary definition of theory.


You are confusing the things. A theory never became a "fact", it is just applied as if it is true because it has been tested and applied with success a good number of times. 

Evolution is a fact, not because of Darwin. It was a fact before. The theory (Natural Selection was the name) and latter many other theories that work with mechanism related to evoluion are called Theory of Evolution. But this does not change: it is a fact species changed to new species. The theory just wants to explain how this happens.

----------


## AuntShecky

An oft-quoted truism: "A person has a right to his own opinions, but no one has the right to his own facts."

When some folks hear a certain opinion repeated _ ad infinitum_, they start believing it to be fact. Same with falsehoods, myths, urban legends. That's dangerous. The antidote? Take the responsibility of gathering all the available facts first, then your well-informed opinion will carry weight. 

That's pretty basic stuff, but somehow we often forget what's obvious.

----------


## ladderandbucket

> Evolution is a fact, not because of Darwin. It was a fact before. The theory (Natural Selection was the name) and latter many other theories that work with mechanism related to evoluion are called Theory of Evolution. But this does not change: it is a fact species changed to new species. The theory just wants to explain how this happens.


This is my understanding. Evolution seems unlikely to be wrong. Whilst natural selection is an observable component of evolution there is still room for revision of its import. Science is always provisional because it can never be perfect. This is not the same as saying it can go in reverse.

Tangentially related, I read an article recently which claimed that facts have a half-life of 45 years. Which is to say that 50% of new facts will be disproved by 2057. I think this is not quite a paradox but seems to undermine itself somehow...

----------


## Calidore

> somehow we often forget what's obvious.


I don't think it's forgetting so much as not wanting to be bothered double-checking. Sometimes that falls under submission to authority or a bully, sometimes simple laziness.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

Cheers to all the posters who saved me the trouble of replying to Rainyhawaii.

----------


## Rainyhawaii

I may have gotten too attached to my opinion here as I couldn't do anything else until devising a response. This will be changed. I also got this discussion confused with the post I was referring to. I knew I would lose there if I tried to argue it, but somehow still had the nerve to post it here.
So yes, 'theory' may be taken to be fact. 
"So science has tossed the use of "law" in favor of "theory". This "theory" does not mean "hypothesis" which is a speculation." ~ qimissung 
I was unaware of this, my bad. Thank you for enlightening me. (No sarcasm intended.)

P.s. Due to other personal reasons though, I will not take evolution to be as 'factual' as gravity.

----------


## JCamilo

A theory will not became a fact. Give it up. You are confuding seriously theory to be taken as truth or to be factual in the sense to have elements that are predictable, measured, etc. But it does not became a fact. A scientist must apply a current theory as if it is factual, but the truth is gravity is a fact. Nothing changes it. Newton theory of gravity is not treated as such in the relativity field because other theory surpassed it. Facts are not surpassed. 

And your personal reason must be very good. May I ask you the relation between wolves and dogs?

----------


## Anton Hermes

> Due to other personal reasons though, I will not take evolution to be as 'factual' as gravity.


What do "personal reasons" have to do with it? Our personal opinions have no bearing on the validity of scientific constructs. I can't claim that my personal opinion that germ theory is a fiction is relevant to a discussion of microbiology.

But hey ---got magnanimity if you want it--- believe whatever makes you happy.

----------


## Rainyhawaii

> What do "personal reasons" have to do with it? Our personal opinions have no bearing on the validity of scientific constructs. I can't claim that my personal opinion that germ theory is a fiction is relevant to a discussion of microbiology.
> 
> But hey ---got magnanimity if you want it--- believe whatever makes you happy.


I never said my opinion ever had anything to do with 'the validity of scientific constructs' that's why I put it in the post script. 




> A theory will not became a fact. Give it up. You are confuding seriously theory to be taken as truth or to be factual in the sense to have elements that are predictable, measured, etc. But it does not became a fact. A scientist must apply a current theory as if it is factual, but the truth is gravity is a fact. Nothing changes it. Newton theory of gravity is not treated as such in the relativity field because other theory surpassed it. Facts are not surpassed. 
> 
> And your personal reason must be very good. May I ask you the relation between wolves and dogs?


I said theory may be taken to be 'fact' I didn't say it becomes a fact. And I don't see what your last question has to do with anything. If it's some attempt to prove me wrong in something I'll ask you to give it up. Read this comment and the one prior carefully and you may see my acceptance of what you had said. If it's something else start a new thread and send me a link to it. Otherwise I won't be a part of it.

----------


## JCamilo

Your confusion is not between theory and fact, but that theory is not truth because lacks the capacity to proved as facts are. Those things are unrelated, a theory has other functions thus just cannot be stabilished like facts. Anyways, the question is quite simple and had to do with a claim you previously did. Do you think dogs and wolves are related?

----------


## miyako73

Just want to repeat what our elders say about opinions and facts.

Opinions are like dimes, and even monkeys' asses have them. Facts are the ones you say after putting your hands into the fire, after jumping off the cliff, after telling your mother to shut up.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> I said theory may be taken to be 'fact' I didn't say it becomes a fact.


Many theories are (correctly) taken as factual because they have mountains of evidence supporting them, absolutely nothing that falsifies them, and no signs that there will be anything soon to falsify them. To write off evolution as a theory is just as silly as to write off gravity as a theory; both have as much evidence supporting them as is possible for any theory.

----------


## miyako73

Didn't you say before that gravity is a theory not a fact? Go back to your old posts for consistency of thoughts.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> Didn't you say before that gravity is a theory not a fact?


Reading comprehension, please. Try again.

----------


## miyako73

You read this:

"Many theories are (correctly) taken as factual"



analyze the word "correctly" in that one. Don't play semantics again.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

That's not what I was referring to by saying "reading comprehension;" point to any post in this thread where I stated those theories weren't factual or couldn't be considered as factual. Others were making the distinction that, in science, there is no hierarchy of truthfulness where theory graduates to being a fact, and the notion that there is simply betrays an ignorance of what those terms mean. In the post you replied to, I was pointing out that many theories are taken to be factual informally, ie, in an epistemological sense, because of how much evidence they have supporting them, even though they never "officially" become facts in the scientific sense, and that only the ignorant dismiss them as "theories," thinking that "theories" are less than "facts." 

To put it as simply as possible: theory is the end-point of science. Whether we consider theories as factual is really more of a philosophical question, but the obvious answer is that there are many scientific theories that we all believe accurately describe reality and that we very much do consider to be factual. Theory and fact is not mutually exclusive or mutually inclusive. Some theories are bunk, some have some evidence supporting them but also have other competing theories, and then there are those theories, like gravity and evolution, that have been so thoroughly worked out over the past century-plus of scientific inquiry that nobody that really understands either questions their truthfulness.

----------


## miyako73

I only replied to that one because I found it wrong.

Even in elementary science, a theory is not a fact, nor is it factual.


Theory is, well, a theory--nothing else.

----------


## MorpheusSandman

I edited and tried to clarify my above post; that theories are theories is obvious, but whether they are factual, or whether we consider them to be factual, is a different matter entirely and has more to do with philosophy (epistemology) than it does with science. Here's a copy/paste from The National Academies of Science that explains it quite well: 


> In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.

----------


## ralfyman

When it comes to opinions concerning works of art, exposure to more works from different genres, historical periods, and movements helps.

----------


## AuntShecky

> When it comes to opinions concerning works of art, exposure to more works from different genres, historical periods, and movements helps.


Yep. That's just what it says in the important essay, "Tradition and the Individual Talent."
Bet you didn't know you were paraphrasing T. S. Eliot, did you, ralfyman!

----------


## Hawg Horse

Fact: All things factual have exceptions ... or at least caveats; therefore, there is no such thing as non-fiction. Even the color Non-fictional Gray ... has fifty shades. The only proper definition of non-fiction is ... the opposite of fiction. The best non-fiction can hope for is the ring of truth.

----------


## miyako73

To say that Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a fact or factual is dismissing the possibility that maybe there are still things about the theory that we don't know or we don't get. A Theory is formulated in a general fashion. It is correct to say that some aspects of Darwin's Theory of Evolution are factual and that we evolved from earlier primates is a fact. See the difference?

----------


## Hawg Horse

> To say that Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a fact or factual is dismissing the possibility that maybe there are still things about the theory that we don't know or we don't get. A Theory is formulated in a general fashion. It is correct to say that some aspects of Darwin's Theory of Evolution are factual and that we evolved from earlier primates is a fact. See the difference?


Yes. Well put. Can you think of any possible exceptions, or enlightening caveats, to your factual premise ... even if only stated as philosophical exceptions, or poetic caveats? Is there no factor of error in the assertion? Could there not be some discovery in DNA research that evidenced non-primates in a rogue line of human genealogy?

----------


## PeterL

> To say that Einstein's Theory of Relativity is a fact or factual is dismissing the possibility that maybe there are still things about the theory that we don't know or we don't get. A Theory is formulated in a general fashion. It is correct to say that some aspects of Darwin's Theory of Evolution are factual and that we evolved from earlier primates is a fact. See the difference?


Yes, emphatically, and more importantly both Special and General Relativity Theories are based on assumptions that may not be actual facts. It is possible that there is a possible inertial frame of reference in Aether Theory, and it is possible that the speed of light is not a limit (but I believe that it is, and there appers to be no way around the discontinuity shown in the Lorenz transformation). There may be a different explanation that would work better, but I don't know what that would be.

----------


## Anton Hermes

> Yes, emphatically, and more importantly both Special and General Relativity Theories are based on assumptions that may not be actual facts.


The same can be said for any theory. The reason we say it's a "fact" that the Earth orbits the Sun, or that humans and apes share a recent common ancestor, is because the theories we've constructed to explain observations from astronomy, genetics, and paleontology have been confirmed by subsequent observations. This involves accepting assumptions about the movement of celestial bodies and the DNA replication process that have also been tested to a degree where we accept them as "fact".

----------


## Hawg Horse

> The same can be said for any theory. The reason we say it's a "fact" that the Earth orbits the Sun, or that humans and apes share a recent common ancestor, is because the theories we've constructed to explain observations from astronomy, genetics, and paleontology have been confirmed by subsequent observations. This involves accepting assumptions about the movement of celestial bodies and the DNA replication process that have also been tested to a degree where we accept them as "fact".


Fact, then, if I understand you correctly, is only known to a reasonable "degree" of certainty in a technical sense. Like the proverbial number approaching zero in half-way increments never ultimately arrives, even so, non-fiction, at its best, can only attain a ring of factual truth. All is fiction.

----------


## Anton Hermes

> Fact, then, if I understand you correctly, is only known to a reasonable "degree" of certainty in a technical sense. Like the proverbial number approaching zero in half-way increments never ultimately arrives, even so, non-fiction, at its best, can only attain a ring of factual truth. All is fiction.


That's what I meant. We only understand reality through affirming the models humanity has created to represent it. As useful as our maps are, they're not the territory.

-Nato

----------


## MorpheusSandman

> That's what I meant. We only understand reality through affirming the models humanity has created to represent it. As useful as our maps are, they're not the territory.
> 
> -Nato


Emphatically THIS. I use "the map is not the territory" distinction all the time. The best we can ever do is state that our map seems to reflect the territory accurately based on our sense experience. One can take things far enough to where there are no facts, since you can not list a fact that is not based on _some_ assumption that can't be guaranteed. In this respect, theories are maps that can reflect the territory to varying degrees, and we usually arrive at points where something has been repeatedly confirmed so much that we start considering it factually true.

----------


## ralfyman

> Yep. That's just what it says in the important essay, "Tradition and the Individual Talent."
> Bet you didn't know you were paraphrasing T. S. Eliot, did you, ralfyman!


I think he is referring to tradition. I am suggesting something beyond that.

----------

