Fact or Opinion, or Both?

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

I disagree with your assessment that a fact can be false. In fact, i cannot find any definition of the word fact where it says one can be untrue. The defining feature of a fact is that it is true.

What i would say is your definition of a fact is your opinion.

I understand what you are saying, and many (not all) definitions of a "fact" do require the fact to also be true, but there are many common uses of the word fact that follow what I am saying. Such as the fairly common sentence "The facts are in dispute". A sane person would never dispute a "fact" if they are true by the very meaning of the word.

However, if you like, replace the word fact in my original post with the phrase 'things purporting to be facts"?

I don't agree that an untrue fact is an opinion.

For example, I would never call this sentence an opinion:

"I am holding a pencil".

No one except me knows if it is true, and I don't see how it being false makes it an opinion.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

No, some are actual facts, and some are "alternative facts". There is an important distinction between the two.

Which ones are alternative facts?

 

[brandon429]

@Aaron75 reviews have no bearing in the matter at all, their performance across 1000 reef compared to api is the key difference

see this thread

see what seneye shows? do these results below seem wrong / the point is look how fast reef tanks handle ammonia, look how consistent the logs are:

***nobody in reefing knew displays resolve test ammonia loading in 15 minutes before seneye

api can never ever show that true ability so it’s misled us with days long lag times, false stalls

Does anyone dose ammonia and/or how would one try?

So, after an interesting discussion on nitrate dosing and looking at my Walt Disney coral and seeing it slightly less colorful than I have seen it in others tanks, I have decided I want to learn about and then try dosing ammonia instead of buying 20 damsels. Nitrate additives I see abound and...

www.reef2reef.com

look at the their logs for nitrification rates is the point, look at how tight it is for reef displays


to learn the difference, you could start a thread where api owners dose ammonia into their displays and we compare colors, guesses and resolve times among twenty systems

they won’t be like seneye, the readings will be all over the place. That’s what I’m referring to

reviews could be the seneye customer service rate of quality, or from people who don’t prep slides correctly, = no bearing on the matter whatsoever

study that thread above, see if seneye isn’t correct. Nobody’s cycle was stalled in that thread, nobody was stuck at .25 or .5 requiring a new round of bottle bac

agreed it’s not worth the cost for just cycling, we can easily cycle any tank nowadays without any testing using any kits. One day we will have cheap meters though and that’s when we can look back on cycling rules to see what was fact vs opinion, it’ll have to be hindsight

 

[brandon429]

Someone reading try and find a mere 3 examples among all seneye logs uploaded to any social media or forum that showed ammonia non control in a reef display of any age

see how hard that is to find? There are thousands of samples uploaded, only three to find should be easy


we can in turn find about fifty thousand claimed examples where api said a reef couldn’t control ammonia, and they’re all from tanks showing perfect animal health: clues to the truth are already available to us/ key point in my opinion

 

[JimWelsh]

Which ones are alternative facts?

The ones that are not demonstrably or verifiably true. Merely phrasing a sentence in such a way that it is either true or false doesn't make that declaration a fact.

I understand the distinction you are trying to make between "fact" and "opinion", but it seems as though the distinction you are really making is between the objective, which you call "fact" and the subjective, which you call "opinion".

It is a fact that @brandon429 is participating in this thread. It is my opinion that @brandon429 is trying, somewhat successfully, to hijack it.

 

[brandon429]

gotcha: flagged if we discuss the ongoing conflict in cycling, the ways people accept a color gradient as fact>then make several reactive purchases, how that never happens with digital testing we can search out

Randy and I disagreed on a cycling thread recently where non digital measures were provided as fact, we gave the cycler polar opposite takeaway actions to run based solely on that reading provided.

to me that was part and parcel to this thread, it's why I mentioned cycling at all.



I didn't think Aaron was hijacking for responding to my post, for example. He had a sensible response I thought-was glad he provided a contrasting input. I didn't want to flag him for hijacking because he had an alternate opinion. I wouldn't want him to not post, in order to shape the direction of the thread in a pleasing manner for me.

onward with the thread not a problem, inputs you disagree with can be stopped easily now and you can control the content as you see fit. no more cycling discussion for sure in the matter. content=shaped.

 

[Randy Holmes-Farley Verified Community Expert]

The ones that are not demonstrably or verifiably true. Merely phrasing a sentence in such a way that it is either true or false doesn't make that declaration a fact.

I understand the distinction you are trying to make between "fact" and "opinion", but it seems as though the distinction you are really making is between the objective, which you call "fact" and the subjective, which you call "opinion".

OK, I addressed that a bit in post 21.

 

[Dburr1014]

Thought provoking and my head hurts too think about facts, fictions and the in-between.
I do know(fact) I have been trying to use IMO when answering posts.

 

[Soren]

It seems like an important distinction to make is that it is not possible for us with our limited senses, understanding, gathered information, etc. to ever confirm anything as undeniable, absolute truth.
The philosophical concept of not being able to prove something absolutely true but only able to prove falsehood seems to be most accurate. Anything that cannot be proven false is the closest we can come to assuming it is "truth" or fact.

It also seems like there needs to be a distinction made that the difference between a factual statement and an opinion statement can be in the wording alone, which is what I think @Randy Holmes-Farley was trying to point out in the original post.

When we share information, we should be careful to use factual statements only when there is significant data and agreement beyond our own information that corroborates the validity of the statement. Otherwise, we should be clear to denote that the statement is an opinion based on our own experiences, or essentially only anecdotal.

The issue with these discussions is exactly as @Randy Holmes-Farley noted in the first post: it will end up esoteric in appearance, since most do not view life through a scientific-method-based lens and just want good results in this hobby for their own desired outcome (whether or not it is reasonable) and don't want to have to understand the science behind it. Most by nature will place emphasis on anecdotes and personal opinion since their understanding is limited enough that they do not understand how much they do not understand. (Dunning-Kruger effect?)
Some look at things from the scientific perspective and will more likely be considerate of the distinctions between fact and opinion. They will tend to focus on experiments and data as evidence rather than anecdotes and personal opinion and are more likely to draw closer to understanding the true facts, at least as close as is possible.

Essentially, what I think is most important (opinion) is that we are willing to challenge our own believed facts to see if they can be proven false. If not proven false, we will be able to counter many of the counter-arguments that seek to prove our facts false rather than not being able to address a counter-argument due to lack of understanding.

I fall in the hobby-scientist group with an interest in philosophy and ethics, so I think this discussion is important while I also recognize that most will quickly become lost and disinterested in such discussion.

In order to not be ruled by our inherent biases, we must first recognize we have inherent biases by the fact that our understanding and experiences are limited to our own thoughts/senses/experiences.

Edit:
Also, my thoughts on true fact versus false fact are that it relates directly to our view of a statement and not the validity of the statement directly.
As Randy mentioned:
"I am holding a pencil." is a statement of fact (certainly a definitive statement) that is a false factual statement for me right now, since I am not holding a pencil. The statement is still factual, just false fact. Now, if I was, in fact, holding a pencil, this factual statement would become one of true fact.
A factual statement is one made in a definitive manner, whether or not it is a true fact.

We should be careful not to state our opinions (or thoughts we have that we cannot sufficiently back up with evidence beyond our own thoughts) with factual statements. In order to make a proper factual statement, we should be willing to back up the statement with verifiable evidence that can be challenged by others and re-proven
with further tests.

 

[yanetterer]

Is this going to be a new series? Perhaps some more scientific terms next: hypothesis vs theory vs theorem vs law, or correlation vs causation.

 

[Thales]

It is a fact that a reefer reports X test kit gave Y result.
It is not a fact that Y result is accurate or correct or true.

It is a fact that from some data collected show trend Z.
It is not a fact that trend Z represents an accurate view of reality or the hobby in general.


While I love this kind of discussion, after 20 years of talking about it in the hobby, I feel that such discussion makes little impact on the hobby in general. People are to caught up in wanting there to be 'truth', and most of the time we don't, and likely, can't have it.

 

[Soren]

It is a fact that a reefer reports X test kit gave Y result.
It is not a fact that Y result is accurate or correct or true.

It is a fact that from some data collected show trend Z.
It is not a fact that trend Z represents an accurate view of reality or the hobby in general.


While I love this kind of discussion, after 20 years of talking about it in the hobby, I feel that such discussion makes little impact on the hobby in general. People are to caught up in wanting there to be 'truth', and most of the time we don't, and likely, can't have it.

I think the reason these discussions have little effect is due to the natural preference toward ignorance rather than investing the effort to try to understand.
By having these discussions, I still have hopes that some will understand the reasons behind the discussion and will endeavor to better themselves in their own understanding and how they offer advice (or are careful not to offer advice where they are not confident that their advice is provable beyond their own thoughts).

Though many do not engage with these discussions and remain in ignorance, therefore limiting the effect of the discussions, I still think that having these discussions is a net benefit when handled appropriately.

 

[Thales]

I think the reason these discussions have little effect is due to the natural preference toward ignorance rather than investing the effort to try to understand.
By having these discussions, I still have hopes that some will understand the reasons behind the discussion and will endeavor to better themselves in their own understanding and how they offer advice (or are careful not to offer advice where they are not confident that their advice is provable beyond their own thoughts).

Though many do not engage with these discussions and remain in ignorance, therefore limiting the effect of the discussions, I still think that having these discussions is a net benefit when handled appropriately.

I don't think it is a preference towards ignorance, rather a lack of training in school. Other than that, I agre completely, just that the ROI, while there, is small. That said, I am prolly rebooting my old Skeptical Reefkeeping articles and doing some new ones. LOL

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

It seems like an important distinction to make is that it is not possible for us with our limited senses, understanding, gathered information, etc. to ever confirm anything as undeniable, absolute truth.
The philosophical concept of not being able to prove something absolutely true but only able to prove falsehood seems to be most accurate. Anything that cannot be proven false is the closest we can come to assuming it is "truth" or fact.

It also seems like there needs to be a distinction made that the difference between a factual statement and an opinion statement can be in the wording alone, which is what I think @Randy Holmes-Farley was trying to point out in the original post.

When we share information, we should be careful to use factual statements only when there is significant data and agreement beyond our own information that corroborates the validity of the statement. Otherwise, we should be clear to denote that the statement is an opinion based on our own experiences, or essentially only anecdotal.

The issue with these discussions is exactly as @Randy Holmes-Farley noted in the first post: it will end up esoteric in appearance, since most do not view life through a scientific-method-based lens and just want good results in this hobby for their own desired outcome (whether or not it is reasonable) and don't want to have to understand the science behind it. Most by nature will place emphasis on anecdotes and personal opinion since their understanding is limited enough that they do not understand how much they do not understand. (Dunning-Kruger effect?)
Some look at things from the scientific perspective and will more likely be considerate of the distinctions between fact and opinion. They will tend to focus on experiments and data as evidence rather than anecdotes and personal opinion and are more likely to draw closer to understanding the true facts, at least as close as is possible.

Essentially, what I think is most important (opinion) is that we are willing to challenge our own believed facts to see if they can be proven false. If not proven false, we will be able to counter many of the counter-arguments that seek to prove our facts false rather than not being able to address a counter-argument due to lack of understanding.

I fall in the hobby-scientist group with an interest in philosophy and ethics, so I think this discussion is important while I also recognize that most will quickly become lost and disinterested in such discussion.

In order to not be ruled by our inherent biases, we must first recognize we have inherent biases by the fact that our understanding and experiences are limited to our own thoughts/senses/experiences.

Edit:
Also, my thoughts on true fact versus false fact are that it relates directly to our view of a statement and not the validity of the statement directly.
As Randy mentioned:
"I am holding a pencil." is a statement of fact (certainly a definitive statement) that is a false factual statement for me right now, since I am not holding a pencil. The statement is still factual, just false fact. Now, if I was, in fact, holding a pencil, this factual statement would become one of true fact.
A factual statement is one made in a definitive manner, whether or not it is a true fact.

We should be careful not to state our opinions (or thoughts we have that we cannot sufficiently back up with evidence beyond our own thoughts) with factual statements. In order to make a proper factual statement, we should be willing to back up the statement with verifiable evidence that can be challenged by others and re-proven
with further tests.

In my opinion, adding "I think", "I believe", "IME" (in my experience), "IMO" (in my opinion), "YMMV" (your mileage may vary), and the like to our comments and replies - especially responses to specific questions - is the best practice.

I personally find it irritating , when clarifying/correcting someone's comment, that people get defensive and insist on absolutes; e.g. posting "API is terrible" and then getting bent out of shape when someone clarifies that API tests aren't as precise but are not 'bad' in general (Not trying to start a war with this example, it's just the first I thought of)

 

[jda]

I just want facts or opinions based on what people have actually experienced/done separated from those that people read about. Not all facts are the same. Not all opinons are the same.

An opinion(based on experience) from a reefer with a tank that I admire is worth more to me than a fact from some science article that somebody read about.

Anything from actual reefers > anything from internet reefers. The only thing less helpful than internet reefers are what is written, posted or video'd from a manufacturer or supplier, but most think of these as facts... and perhaps the worst kind of facts both dangerous and beyond reproach.

Other than physical facts like gravity, ionic bonds, etc. we have very few in this hobby. Experience or opinions from the truly successful are where most will find the meat of their guidance. Finding those to follow can be hard since it a lot like the intersection of work, time and paying attention.

Sure, most people don't get it and never will. You do these things so that even if you only help a small few, they truly were helped. It is like real leadership in the world, which too few do... it is hard, it can hurt and can cause you pain and plenty of self reflection. I gotta admit... although I see the benefit of doing the hard work of actually helping with this hobby, I am pretty sure that this board is not the right place to do it anymore, if it ever was.

 

[Soren]

In my opinion, adding "I think", "I believe", "IME" (in my experience), "IMO" (in my opinion), "YMMV" (your mileage may vary), and the like to our comments and replies - especially responses to specific questions - is the best practice.

I personally find it irritating when clarifying/correcting someone's comment that people get defensive and insist on absolutes; e.g. posting "API is terrible" and then getting bent out of shape when someone clarifies that API tests aren't as precise but are not 'bad' in general (Not trying to start a war with this example, it's just the first I thought of)

Agreed: Adding the clarifiers to our statements on where it is opinion versus generally accepted fact is important, hence my common use of the differentiation! My stance and application is proven even in my earlier responses in this thread.

If my opinions or shared facts are countered in any way, I am ready to add clarification, back it up with data, or otherwise indicate my source of the information. I don't trust my own thoughts as absolutes, so I also will not take absolutes from someone else.

Another interesting distinction that could be made is that between argument and arguing:
Arguing could be defined as a discussion in which two opposing parties hold a belief without being able to justify the belief or address counter-points.
Argument could be defined as stating a held belief while giving evidence to support the holding of that belief and being willing to address counter-arguments.

 

[John Bolden]

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

Agreed: Adding the clarifiers to our statements on where it is opinion versus generally accepted fact is important, hence my common use of the differentiation! My stance and application is proven even in my earlier responses in this thread.

If my opinions or shared facts are countered in any way, I am ready to add clarification, back it up with data, or otherwise indicate my source of the information. I don't trust my own thoughts as absolutes, so I also will not take absolutes from someone else.

Another interesting distinction that could be made is that between argument and arguing:
Arguing could be defined as a discussion in which two opposing parties hold a belief without being able to justify the belief or address counter-points.
Argument could be defined as stating a held belief while giving evidence to support the holding of that belief and being willing to address counter-arguments.

Also, not quite in line with the OP intent, but citing articles or websites when you've COPIED THEM VERBATIM (large sections, not just a definition or description) rather than letting people think they are your original thoughts or experiences is very misleading and shows poor character

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

Argument could be defined as stating a held belief while giving evidence to support the holding of that belief and being willing to address counter-arguments.

I thoroughly enjoy this type of argument (fact, lol)

 

[Soren]

I don't think it is a preference towards ignorance, rather a lack of training in school. Other than that, I agre completely, just that the ROI, while there, is small. That said, I am prolly rebooting my old Skeptical Reefkeeping articles and doing some new ones. LOL

Just to be clear, I don't mean that it is a conscious preference towards ignorance, but rather more a natural resource-management to not spend resources on things that seem insignificant.
I agree that lack of training in school is also a contributing factor.
The primary factor of ignorance, in my opinion, is that the ignorant person (at least, ignorant in regard to the topic at hand) has chosen to focus attention on or prioritize other factors in life. For example, most people do not consider the in-depth scientific study of the reef tank the main priority and would rather just have a beautiful tank according to what they want as they focus on more important issues (at least by their own judgements).

ROI can be small, but this does not change my perspective of the issue and the desire to help everyone acquire a deeper understanding, myself included. I'll still be careful when and how I offer advice, but, every time I do offer advice, I am open to counter-arguments and will try to address them or shift my understanding if sufficiently disproven.