2

Is there a rigid model for distinguishing opinion, informed opinion and fact consistently and unambiguously?

What makes this confusing is that depending on the context, it's possible to deviate from even the definitions. That is, since e.g. social scientific contexts are non-hard, then it's possible for the subject to decide that "I don't agree with your definition of informed opinion".

mavavilj
  • 2,854
  • 19
  • 34
  • One person's received wisdom might be another's fake news. Especially in these postmodern days of ours. – user4894 Mar 08 '19 at 07:51
  • No. You can distinguish clear cases, but there are plenty of grey areas, especially in social sciences. Even in physics we have controversies, not just about string theory, but about interpreting quantum mechanics, and even classical mechanics in some cases, like the Norton dome. And there is no escaping challenges to standards of evidence and the burden of proof either. On the other hand, well-conducted social studies generally get traction, if not universal approval. – Conifold Mar 08 '19 at 08:02
  • @Conifold I've been pointed out earlier that having a too "anarchist"/reductionist view on the redundancy of psychology and social science could be questionable. However, could you point me to some theories, which are of the kind you mention? That may get universal approval, or have attained? I believe that in order to do that, they would have to display "axiomatic qualities". However, I'm not yet sure what are "axiomatic qualities" in soc. sci. – mavavilj Mar 08 '19 at 10:36
  • Make a pendulum from a piece of string and a weight. My opinion is that it doesn't matter how heavy the weight is, the pendulum will swing side to side at a rate which is determined only by the length of the string. If you don't believe me, you can try it for yourself. We call this 'empiricism'. THIS, is the way we determine fact from opinion. Anything which you cannot corroborate by experiment, is not 'knowledge', but some form of belief with varying chances of being true. so, some americans landed on the moon in 1969. What experiment are you going to perform to verify that? – Richard Mar 08 '19 at 12:28
  • @Richard No, you reference to a "memory" of an empirical event. It would make little sense to say that "the only thing that exists is that, which you can observe now". It'd invalidate a lot of basic human features, such as the ability to pass and store knowledge. However, in the context of the question, the problem is, "what is socially constructed truth?" or "what are truthful social constructs?". – mavavilj Mar 08 '19 at 12:43
  • @mavavilj It's no good crying about it... Science is the only thing that finds truth. – Richard Mar 08 '19 at 12:49
  • @Richard Yes, but again in the context of question. What's the scientific definition and collection of principles that explains how to differentiate opinion, informed opinion and fact. And not just in a heuristic way. Because mixing opinions, informed opinions and facts is problematic. – mavavilj Mar 08 '19 at 12:55
  • @mavavilj only personal corroboration by experiment is able to 'consistently and unambiguously' create facts. Anything else is opinion (informed or otherwise). Galileo handed down "knowledge" to us, it's knowledge because we can still use the method he described to corroborate it personally. I can't afford a proton collider, so I am stuck with having to decided if CERN's arguments from authority have any validity. But that method of vetting authorities is not 'consistent and unambiguous'. – Richard Mar 08 '19 at 13:13
  • @Richard Wouldn't that view (which I wholly agree on) make out-subject political decision making impossible? Since if the subject does not or cannot (e.g. because rejecting it in principle) "replicate" the political decision, then it doesn't exist from subject's perspective. So even when a politician would e.g. decide to put a country to war, one could say on an individual level that "I don't replicate the reasoning that leads putting me to go to war". – mavavilj Mar 08 '19 at 15:27
  • @mavavilj I have spent half an hour writing long expositions on this.. but I've decided to simply reply with : Many governments are currently operating with zero credibility. They are demanding that their authority be respected, whilst offering narratives which are discernibly, transparently false, after only brief contemplation. By any objective means of scoring trust in authority, my particular government is currently scoring very badly. Secondly, I personally consider war an anachronism. And war on foreign soil to be amongst the worst crimes a human can commit. – Richard Mar 08 '19 at 16:05
  • @Richard I feel the same, but this doesn't answer the question. Unless it's that "only subjective experience can fundamentally decide". Thus, opinions, informed opinions, facts must be "agreed upon" on an intersubjective level. – mavavilj Mar 08 '19 at 16:21
  • @mavavilj I balk at use of the word subjective. I understand that in philosophy it has a particular meaning. Yes. Only a particular kind of subjective experience can guarantee fact. Everything else is 'subjective' in the common definition of the word. – Richard Mar 08 '19 at 19:27
  • You can forget about universal approval, or anything close, but they occasionally award Nobel Prize in Economics [to social scientists](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobel_Memorial_Prize_in_Economic_Sciences#Awards_to_non-economists), like Simon, and since 2003 there is [Holberg prize in social sciences](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holberg_Prize) specifically, Habermas was a recipient. I am highly skeptical of "axiomatic qualities", of any sort, in social sciences. – Conifold Mar 09 '19 at 04:25
  • @Richard But there's the thing that I don't think it's reasonable to say that: Because of what Galilei observed, it's fact. Rather, fact formation should take observation of *the same thing* by others. I.e. it needs to become intersubjectively approved. Intersubjectivity is easily accepted as a part of measure of factness, because humans are group-social animals and thus having an "invidividual fact" makes sense only, if it's impossible for others to replicate the same conditions (e.g. you have an unique disease, which others don't have). However, intersubjectivity is not enough. – mavavilj Mar 09 '19 at 09:01
  • @mavavilj This is why science has peer review. Simple Harmonic Motion was conceived in Galileo's mind (at an opera I think). He did experiments to verify his initial thoughts, then he wrote down what he'd done and asked others to do the same thing. I could accept his word for it, but he could (like pons and fleischmann) have made it up. But I can perform the experiment myself and see it's true. I don't need to accept argument from authority, and I don't have to come up with ideas myself. Any opinion which cannot be self verified, should be placed in the maybe pile. – Richard Mar 09 '19 at 10:27
  • In light of the extended comments, I recommend revising the question. Was there a specific situation that brought this to mind? – Mark Andrews Mar 11 '19 at 19:49

0 Answers0