3 ms·

> People can make judgment calls. Those are opinions. I'm not sure that's a helpful distinction. In some sense, everything we classify as a 'fact' is a judgem

by gwd 1y ago

> People can make judgment calls. Those are opinions. I'm not sure that's a helpful distinction. In some sense, everything we classify as a 'fact' is a judgement call: is the sun a giant ball of fusing hydrogen? I mean, probably, but maybe we're all living in some sort simulation and it doesn't really exist at all; Or maybe you are living in your own personal "Truman Show", being fed lies by everyone who shows you scientific "evidence" about the sun's nature. But "the sun is a giant ball of fusing hydrogen" is a different type of statement than "chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla", or "Mozart is better than Beethoven".

collinmcnulty 1y ago
I think the most useful distinction is between “opinions” and “beliefs” rather than opinions and facts. A belief represents your confidence in the truth or falsehood of a statement. While an opinion has no underlying objective reality. “Apples are better than peaches” is an opinion. “More people ate apples than bananas in 2024” is a belief; it may be a true belief or a false belief but there is an answer.
Braxton1980 1y ago
An opinion can't be falsified. "The sun is a giant ball of fusing hydrogen" has the possibility of being proven false. This means it's either a true or false fact. If I said "NYC is the capital of the United States"* I'm either lying or mistaken What makes it a lie vs mistaken? Whether it's a genuine belief, that I have a reason to have the belief. For example if I made the assumption it's the capital because it's the biggest city then I'm mistaken. It's a lie if I know it's not true, if I ignore information that falsifies the fact. *To avoid semantics I mean the official capital of the country not like "it's important"
- gwd 1y ago
  Right; and there are things which fall into the "true or false" category that are difficult to get clear answers for; economic policy is something that there are just too many confounding factors to prove to the same degree you can prove the laws of physics, for example. And even for claims which are in the realm of "fact", which are false, but which are truly believed, we need to be careful about suppressing truth. There was a time when "the sun goes around the earth" was accepted "scientific fact". Lots of flat-earthers genuinely believe the falsehoods they're spreading. Where do we draw the line between "healthy skepticism" and "dangerous falsehood"? I don't have a clear answer, but I do think there needs to be a line.
  - Braxton1980 1y ago
    >Where do we draw the line between "healthy skepticism" and "dangerous falsehood" The line is whether the person is genuine in belief and the potential harm. There's no direct harm if someone believes the sun revolves around the earth.
    - gwd 1y ago
      > There's no direct harm if someone believes the sun revolves around the earth. No direct harm; but it may be comorbid with other things that cause harm, like vaccine skepticism. There is a question about what the best response is. Just censoring disinformation like this may cause people who notice / experience the censorship to give more credence to the disinformation. But as is apparent from the whole "flat earth" fiasco, there are a large number of people who seem simply incapable of understanding basic math or scientific principles. The earth can be proven round by personal observations made by anyone. If people still cannot be convinced the earth is round, how are they to be convinced about things that they cannot collect personal observations, like vaccines, or the holocaust, or January 6th? At any rate, I'm glad I'm not running a platform like YouTube; it's not an easy problem.

by gwd 1y ago

collinmcnulty 1y ago

I think the most useful distinction is between “opinions” and “beliefs” rather than opinions and facts. A belief represents your confidence in the truth or falsehood of a statement. While an opinion has no underlying objective reality. “Apples are better than peaches” is an opinion. “More people ate apples than bananas in 2024” is a belief; it may be a true belief or a false belief but there is an answer.

Braxton1980 1y ago

An opinion can't be falsified. "The sun is a giant ball of fusing hydrogen" has the possibility of being proven false. This means it's either a true or false fact. If I said "NYC is the capital of the United States"* I'm either lying or mistaken What makes it a lie vs mistaken? Whether it's a genuine belief, that I have a reason to have the belief. For example if I made the assumption it's the capital because it's the biggest city then I'm mistaken. It's a lie if I know it's not true, if I ignore information that falsifies the fact. *To avoid semantics I mean the official capital of the country not like "it's important"

gwd 1y ago
Right; and there are things which fall into the "true or false" category that are difficult to get clear answers for; economic policy is something that there are just too many confounding factors to prove to the same degree you can prove the laws of physics, for example. And even for claims which are in the realm of "fact", which are false, but which are truly believed, we need to be careful about suppressing truth. There was a time when "the sun goes around the earth" was accepted "scientific fact". Lots of flat-earthers genuinely believe the falsehoods they're spreading. Where do we draw the line between "healthy skepticism" and "dangerous falsehood"? I don't have a clear answer, but I do think there needs to be a line.
- Braxton1980 1y ago
  >Where do we draw the line between "healthy skepticism" and "dangerous falsehood" The line is whether the person is genuine in belief and the potential harm. There's no direct harm if someone believes the sun revolves around the earth.
  - gwd 1y ago
    > There's no direct harm if someone believes the sun revolves around the earth. No direct harm; but it may be comorbid with other things that cause harm, like vaccine skepticism. There is a question about what the best response is. Just censoring disinformation like this may cause people who notice / experience the censorship to give more credence to the disinformation. But as is apparent from the whole "flat earth" fiasco, there are a large number of people who seem simply incapable of understanding basic math or scientific principles. The earth can be proven round by personal observations made by anyone. If people still cannot be convinced the earth is round, how are they to be convinced about things that they cannot collect personal observations, like vaccines, or the holocaust, or January 6th? At any rate, I'm glad I'm not running a platform like YouTube; it's not an easy problem.