Skip to main content

Facts and Opinions - An Explanation

+
JMJ

When a person's assumptions are events outside of their control they form an opinion and, in my experience, assert this opinion to be fact.

So ... it is important to define some terms:




Distinguishing Between Fact, Opinion, Belief, and Prejudice
When forming personal convictions, we often interpret factual evidence through the filter of our values, feelings, tastes, and past experiences. Hence, most statements we make in speaking and writing are assertions of fact, opinion, belief, or prejudice. The usefulness and acceptability of an assertion can be improved or diminished by the nature of the assertion, depending on which of the following categories it falls into:
A fact is verifiable. We can determine whether it is true by researching the evidence. This may involve numbers, dates, testimony, etc. (Ex.: "World War II ended in 1945.") The truth of the fact is beyond argument if one can assume that measuring devices or records or memories are correct. Facts provide crucial support for the assertion of an argument. However, facts by themselves are worthless unless we put them in context, draw conclusions, and, thus, give them meaning.
An opinion is a judgment based on facts, an honest attempt to draw a reasonable conclusion from factual evidence. (For example, we know that millions of people go without proper medical care, and so you form the opinion that the country should institute national health insurance even though it would cost billions of dollars.) An opinion is potentially changeable--depending on how the evidence is interpreted. By themselves, opinions have little power to convince. You must always let your reader know what your evidence is and how it led you to arrive at your opinion.
Unlike an opinion, a belief is a conviction based on cultural or personal faith, morality, or values. Statements such as "Capital punishment is legalized murder" are often called "opinions" because they express viewpoints, but they are not based on facts or other evidence. They cannot be disproved or even contested in a rational or logical manner. Since beliefs are inarguable, they cannot serve as the thesis of a formal argument. (Emotional appeals can, of course, be useful if you happen to know that your audience shares those beliefs.)
Another kind of assertion that has no place in serious argumentation is prejudice, a half-baked opinion based on insufficient or unexamined evidence. (Ex.: "Women are bad drivers.") Unlike a belief, a prejudice is testable: it can be contested and disproved on the basis of facts. We often form prejudices or accept them from others--family, friends, the media, etc.--without questioning their meaning or testing their truth. At best, prejudices are careless oversimplifications. At worst, they reflect a narrow-minded view of the world. Most of all, they are not likely to win the confidence or agreement of your readers.
(Adapted from: Fowler, H. Ramsey. The Little, Brown Handbook. Boston: Little, Brown, 1986.)
Colorado State: Distinguishing Between Fact, Opinion, Belief, and Prejudice

Now there is another set of terms that need to be defined ... Objective vs Subjective.


Subjective refers to personal perspectives, feelings, or opinions entering the decision making process.
Objective refers to the elimination of subjective perspectives and a process that is purely based on hard facts.
Business Dictionary: Objective vs Subjective

Why is this relevant in dealing with people?

Because a persons actions can be described as facts because they are verifiable.

Their motivations cannot be described as such unless they explicitly reveal them.

Sans this explicit revelation by the person in question, all conclusions are subjective and opinions.

Example:

Fact: Rome intervened in the 2000 chapter of the FSSP.
Opinion: Rome's motivation was to quash the FSSP being Traditional.

This opinion may very well be correct, but barring an explicit revelation from the people who objectively took the factual actions - this assertion remains an opinion.

In this case, it depends on how well the assertion / opinion is supported by the facts.

I suspect that this understanding will be very important in the days / weeks / months / years / decades / centuries / milleniums / etc ahead of us.

P^3

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II: Dr. John Lamont

+ JMJ This is the second article from Dr. Lamont from his lecture given in May 2014. P^3 Source Part A: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny Source Part B: Society of St. Hugh of Cluny 8 May2014 The Catholic Church and the Rule of Law- Part II By John Lamont To understand how the Jesuit conception of obedience departed from earlier conceptions, it is helpful to compare it with the teaching of St. Thomas on obedience. The fundamental difference between the two is that St. Thomas considers the proper object of obedience to be the precept of the superior (2a2ae q. 104 a. 2 co., ad 3). Obedience that seeks to forestall the expressed will of the superior does not bear on what the superior wants or thinks in general, but only on what the superior intends to command. St. Ignatius’s lowest degree of obedience, which he does not consider to be virtuous, is thus what St. Thomas considers to be the only form of obedience. St. Thomas holds that St. Ignatius’s alleged higher forms of o...

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 6c: Principles and Rules for Surviving this Crisis of the Catholic Church (Principle 2)

 + JMJ Principle 2: Know the Faith as the Catholic Church Teaches or Taught it. A knowledge of the Faith and familiarity with the history of the Catholic Church for at least the past 200 years provides a good foundation for weathering this storm. Bias, Opinions and Misbeliefs One landmine that undermines principle #2 is the mixing of personal opinion with doctrine. These opinions, beliefs by another name, are sometimes held in a death grip. In some cases they are just prejudices against various real groups such as immigrants, Jews, communists, masons etc. In some cases it extends to conspiracy theories such as sedevacantism. These firmly held beliefs prevent people from both understanding Doctrine as Taught by the Church and making the necessary distinctions. For example, which religions offer worship to the True God? Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Jews and Muslims. Some people suck in their breath through their teeth creating an noticeable hiss at the above statement....

Morning and Evening and other sundry Prayers

+ JMJ Along the theme of P^3 (Prayer, Penance, Patience), and for my own reference ... here is a collection of Morning and Evening prayers from the Ideal Daily Missal along with some additional prayers. In this crisis of the Church, I do not think it is possible to do too much prayer, penance and have patience. P^3

Rome and the SSPX - Version 2026 Part 6b: Principles and Rules for Surviving this Crisis of the Catholic Church (Principle 1)

 + JMJ Principle 1: Realize that something is amiss in the Catholic Church The world in which I had my Traditional Awakening, is one in which practically anything pre-Conciliar such as liturgy, doctrinc, and even dogmas are either suppressed, ignored or re-framed to be acceptable to the ‘world’. What is more, the people adhering to these pre-conciliar teachings and liturgy are persecuted by other members of the Catholic Church. The things that non-Trads say about Trads can be quite extreme. For example, accusations against Traditionalists include that they are: A revival of the Jansenists (link) , Schismatics, Heretics, Uncharitable, Lefebrists Radicals Integrists When one group of Catholics is persecuted by the others for simply wanting to live as Catholics before them did for generations … well something is wrong. Further, we need to realize that when what was previously condemned is now promoted and what was previously promoted as the trut...

Staring Contest Between Rome and the SSPX - Guess Who Just Blinked

+ JMJ History has a habit of repeating itself. Normally, you need to wait a number of years before this becomes manifest. However Archbishop Pozzo has made a statement that the SSPX won't have to capitulate on Religous Liberty or Ecumenism. As quoted by Catholic Culture: Archbishop Pozzo went on to say that while a few documents of Vatican II involve doctrinal statements, others are “authoritative and binding to a different and lesser degree.” The conciliar statements on ecumenism and on religious freedom, which have been most heavily criticized by the SSPX, are in the latter category, he said. So now that leaves just  Collegiality and Subsist ... as well as the six conditions . Of course, this is just Archbishop Pozzo speaking in an interview - which is an unofficial chain of communication. The question now is whether or not there is an official shift from the 'Accept the Council of New Mass' mantra. La Stampa Catholic Culture P^3