Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:04 Awesome people filtering in Nessa, hang a few others. Uh, David, why don't you get us started off about why you chose this topic for today?
Speaker 1 00:00:29 Okay. Yeah. Thanks Jennifer. Um, I got interested in this topic and working on the latest version or edition of my logic textbook, the, our reasoning, um, my coauthor, Debbie Hudgens, and I, um, I had to see Debbie's on the call is, uh, we, we added a whole new chapter on cognitive bias and, um, in one section on confirmation bias, we thought it was important to, um, clarify and help students appreciate the difference between back, uh, statements of fact and statements of opinion. And Debbie and I, um, by the way, are working on, um, developing that idea into an article for, um, journals, uh, of logic and possibly pedagogy. Um, so that's, that's how I got interested into the subject. Uh, distinguishing fact from opinion. This has been a recurring issue for a long time, um, in regard to the media now, the social media, um, and if anything has become much more pressing today, some of you may remember, uh, the early in January of 2017, the early days of the Trump administration is advisor Kellyanne Conway, um, was defending his press secretary Sean Spicer by saying, well, John was just giving alternative facts, quote unquote.
Speaker 1 00:02:08 Um, and that phrase alternative facts became it, made her a laughingstock and it was wifey would appeal in the media. Um, meanwhile, Facebook and other social media, um, have been removing what they consider false facts or misinformation, um, arguably in an opinionated biased way, but still they're doing that. Um, there are media fact-checkers, uh, some of them are good, but many of them are just, you know, editorializing, um, uh, in saying what they think is a fact and what isn't, um, the distinction is widely taught in elementary and secondary schools, and there's a literature in the pedagogical literature, uh, about that distinction. I'm going to come back to that a little later. Um, let me, let me first clarify one just simple philosophical point. The distinction between fact and opinion is actually a kind of category mistake. Uh, facts are aspects of reality. They're what makes statements true.
Speaker 1 00:03:22 Um, but they're out there in the world opinions or mental phenomenon beliefs in the mind. So the common mistake is facts are not in the mind. Opinions don't exist outside the mind. The real distinction is factual statements versus statements of opinion. Um, I think many people who have commented on this understand that, but it's not always clear in other readings, uh, in any case, uh, this distinction has played a really important role and, um, different domains, uh, over time in law, um, in American law anyway, um, the, the bounds of libel law, um, are that you can Sue Sue an author for a public statement, if that author makes a false factual claim, but a statement of opinion are not liable to, um, uh, defamation, um, convictions. So the law, um, listened as part of the log Roz's distinction between fact what's a matter of fact and what, or a statement of fact, and what does this statement and opinion, uh, in journalism, uh, it beginning in the early 20th century, um, after the yellow journalism period of late 19th century, uh, you know, William Randolph, then the others, there was an effort to separate news from opinion I E state, you know, covering the facts versus offering opinions.
Speaker 1 00:05:01 And, uh, that has been challenged as it's been a topic in, in media studies for awhile now. Um, uh, somewhere on our website, I have an article called Ken reporters handled the truth, which goes into that history if anyone's interested. Um, recently though, I mean, uh, the, this nation is really broken down in the major media, uh, is very hard to tell, to read news stories, uh, and not if you're at all, you know, conversant and, uh, or able to read between the lines and seeing the amount of opinion that gets into the news stories. Um, particularly in the, in the Trump era, um, he uttered so many statements that were regarded as false and sometimes, um, surely there were, um, journalists began making claims in their reporting as to, you know, a claim is false or discredited. Uh, that's, that's a real change from a previous historic practice when journalists doing reporters would say, here's the fact, um, if there's any issue about it, they would, they would quote one authority or another sometimes, um, people on different sides of the issue and leave the, um, uh, assessment of, you know, what story falls to, um, the editorial page, but that is long since gone.
Speaker 1 00:06:30 Um, so let let's with that background. I want to do a little exercise, the, uh, an exercise about the question, how clear is it as an nation between the kinds of statements made in the news media commentary, everyday conversation, whatever. And I want to look at a few examples and get your, your take on that. There are six statements I have here, and I'm going to read them. Um, uh, this is an audio only here forum. So I can't show them, show you my screen, but it, um, it's, shouldn't be a problem. I'm going to read the statements. And as I read them, think about, is that a statement of fact or a statement of opinion, and, um, the issue here is not whether you think the statement is true or false, if it's, if you think a factual statement is one that, um, you may not know whether it's true or false, but you, you, in judging that it's factual, you say there's a, there's a way to confirm it as a fact or not. And statements that are you isolate as opinion. The issue is not whether you agree or not, you may disagree completely, but if, if it's a matter of opinion, um, even if you agree with it, um, uh, consider it, um, still an opinion. So if you're just here with the six, I'm going to read in order and we'll come back to some of them, um, or any of them that you want to talk about. Number one, immigrants who are in the U S illegally have some rights under the constitution.
Speaker 1 00:08:24 Number two, healthcare costs per person in the us are the highest in the developed world. Number three, democracy is the greatest form of government. Number four, president Barack Obama was born in the United States. Number five immigrants who are in the S who are in the U S illegally are a very big problem for the country today. And number six, voter fraud across the U S has undermined the results of our elections. Okay. So number one, immigrants who are in the us illegally have some rights under the constitution, actual or statement, or an opinion anyone want to jump in?
Speaker 2 00:09:24 Well, they couldn't be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment if they were arrested.
Speaker 1 00:09:30 Okay. So,
Speaker 3 00:09:35 So it would be, it should be a fact, right? Just in terms of the category.
Speaker 1 00:09:42 Yes. Whether, whether you, uh, I mean, again, let me say the issue is not, whether you think it's true in this case, it is true, but, um, is it a statement that you could confirm in this case, I'd be, here's the issue, the constitution, uh, hopefully we all have copies of it somewhere in our home or office and, uh, you just look it up, there are some rights that are specified in it. So whether this is more of them, whether they apply to illegal immigrants or not, you can back it out. So I would just, it's a factual statement. Um, president Barack Obama was born in the United States. That was number four. About that one.
Speaker 2 00:10:33 Yeah. I mean, uh, sure. It's all available evidence. We have shows that at this.
Speaker 1 00:10:40 Okay. But again, Scott, if the issue is not, whether it's true, it's whether it's, um, you know, it's a statement of fact that can be verified by something like a birth certificate or yeah. I mean, it doesn't, um, okay. Uh, number five, immigrants who are in the U S illegally are a very big problem for the country today, back to our opinion, statement of fact statement of opinion
Speaker 3 00:11:11 Opinion.
Speaker 1 00:11:14 Great. Thank you, Jay. All right. Now, let me ask, how did you decide these consider number the two about immigrants on number one about they have rights under the constitution and number five, they're a very big problem for the country today. What, what's the difference there that made you assign one to the category of factual statement and the other could the category of the thing?
Speaker 3 00:11:38 I don't know. I think I'd need a philosopher to explain that David, but, but, um, I think it's bringing what I'll call judgment about the implications of a claim that make an, but, uh, it could be that may be better language or different language. I'm just not sure.
Speaker 1 00:11:59 Okay. Uh, the implications, um, could you elaborate that a little bit, Jake, when, when, uh,
Speaker 3 00:12:07 If you're saying, okay, here's a fact, now you are reaching a judgment about the, the implications of that fact, which is not a fact necessarily. I mean, it may be true, but it's not a fact.
Speaker 1 00:12:22 Okay. So the fact here is that there are a number of significant number of immigrants who are in the U S illegally and then that there are a big problem is the implication you're drawing from, uh, from a wider set of considerations and political judgment. Correct. Okay, good. By the way, uh, you do have a philosopher on the case here, Jay, and I'm going to get to my answer anyway. Um, so what's interesting about this. I think, uh, all of these questions were drawn from the survey by the pew research center survey done in 2018 and just, you know, randomly selected people and the results are in breach of these. Um, the majority got the answer, right. Um, but there was significant minority who got it, got them wrong. For example, um, just to go back to this more immigrants, having rights under the constitution, 54% of the respondents said, it's a factual statement, but 44% said it was, uh, opinion.
Speaker 1 00:13:47 That's kind of striking. Um, democracy is the greatest form of government. 69% said, that's an opinion, 29% said, it's a factual statement. Now that's, that's over a quarter of, you know, people drawn from, I, I, as I recall, randomly drawn from us, uh, population, um, who, who pretty clearly have a problem, uh, drawing this distinction. And that has raised a number of questions. There was quite a few, this quite a bit of follow-up writing, uh, about this abuser. Um, and, um, you know, even in, in, uh, in the, in writings about the law and libel law, uh, people were saying, well, you know, this is the judicial standard. Um, for whether some, you know, a person can be prosecuted for defamation, but if many people are unclear about what's, whether a given statement is factual or opinionated, um, then how, you know, we have a problem in the law and I could go on and on about journalism as well.
Speaker 1 00:15:09 So I wanna, um, uh, leave a lot of time for questions, but I do for questions, but I do want to, um, offer my take on the issue and, um, then we can open it for discussion. Um, so what is the proper way to draw this distinction? Well, let me start with what I think are some wrong answers. Uh, one is that factual statements must be true. And I think, you know, we went back and forth a little bit on that with, um, with Scott's, um, comments. Um, but, but no, that's not the issue. Many of us don't know enough to say what, whether we're giving the statement is true, but we can still say, well, it's something that is either true or false in a way that's, you know, it can be confirmed decisively and easily. Um, uh, Debbie Hudgins, uh, in one of her, um, she teaches logic and ethics.
Speaker 1 00:16:13 And other of the things that, uh, uh, south Texas college in Texas, um, she gave him one of her students. The example Wessel co is in Starr county, Weslaco is in stark county. Now I'm betting that unless you happen to be from Texas, um, you don't know whether that's true or false Wessel, Colgate results is city star counties, obviously accounting it's in fact, it's false, but it's a factual statement in that. You can just look at a map going to Google maps, you find out, find it out in 30 seconds. So, um, that, that's something that, um, um, interferes a lot with, um, the literature, uh, particularly teaching literature about, um, fact and opinion, but another and second and much worse, um, error is the idea that opinion statements are subjective.
Speaker 1 00:17:21 This is very common in, um, eyes too, for teachers of primary to secondary school. Uh, here's an example from a guide put out by, um, Palm beach state college, I assume it's the education department quote, a fact is a statement that can be verified. It can be proven to be true or false, to objective evidence okay. And opinion. It, they continue is a statement that expresses a feeling, an attitude, a value judgment, or a belief. It is a statement that is neither true, nor false. Now, wait a minute, opinions clearly can be true or false. They have a basis in reality, the concepts involved in a judgment, um, like democracies, where it is form of government, the concepts involved in that statement are well-formed. They refer to things in the world and you can give reasons for, and against the claim.
Speaker 1 00:18:33 Granted that opinions can be difficult to prove. And I'm going to come back to that. Um, cause that's key to the essence and there are special considerations for some opinions, like values statements, but statements of opinion are not just effluence is coming out of it. And the vapors coming out of a person's mind with no relation to reality, um, and educators who teach this kind of thing to kids, I think are guilty of child abuse. It's really, um, horrendous to give kids the idea that, you know, opinions are whatever you feel like would think, um, you don't have to consider whether they're true or false or what re what reasons you have for them. So that's number two. Um, that's a really bad one and a third one. There, there are others that Debbie and I have isolated, but I'm just focusing on a couple of here.
Speaker 1 00:19:25 Um, the third one is that there is no difference. Facts are true. Propositions opinions are, if they're true, our group propositions, this is a common answer among philosophers. It's the opposite of number two, that the opinions are subjective because in roles of opinions, can't be true or false if the editor infers that there's no difference. And there's a, a grain of, I understand this position as an epistemology, um, in, um, but there is a difference. It's a matter of confirmation, how you confirm one for one type of statement, one category of statement versus another facts are, can be ascertained by direct observation. You know, it's a fact that I'm speaking and you're hearing me, uh, they can be confirmed by valid statistics, vetted statistics. You know, the numbers, you can look up about population of the U S the price index, or, you know, I appreciate their technical problems with that.
Speaker 1 00:20:39 But, um, um, and also the unemployment rate, a lot of economic statistics are, can be argued, uh, by specialists. Um, but given what these terms mean in popular discussions, um, you find them out just by looking them up. There's some scientific truths that, um, uh, are well enough established. Now they're not observed directly observable, but, um, they're, well-established to be considered facts like the geocentric view, um, despite the efforts of flat earthers, uh, it, it is not a mural of opinion that the earth is round. Um, and I would say the same of the, uh, era of natural selection and evolution, because a confirmation is except in the scientific as is because it's simple and clear there 10, there also tends to be common agreement about facts once the evidence is, is for their truth or falsity is, is understood by be able they can do a reopen that's true.
Speaker 1 00:21:50 Otherwise not by hand involve much more complex arguments and considerations, background knowledge, uh, normative premises, philosophical, outlooks, political views, and ideologies. Um, so democracy is the best form of government to use that one again, um, yeah. To verify, to validate that, that opinion, uh, you need to look at the alternative forms of government and the history of how democracy is that function and, um, well, in the context of individual rights and, um, et cetera, and et cetera, et cetera, it's complex, as Jay said, it's, um, you know, we can observe that we have a democracy, uh, depending exactly on how you define it. That's cruel statement of factual statement, but that it's best, um, is a matter of your, um, your judgment about the implications of the facts. You know, so granted there are borderline cases, this is not a hard and fast bright-line distinction.
Speaker 1 00:23:01 Um, uh, and so I don't want to make it sound like, you know, a really sharp, um, or, you know, um, unreasonably sharp, but there's still, uh, the fact of borderline cases doesn't mean the distinction doesn't, it doesn't hold any more than the back of borderline, uh, colors between orange and yellow means that orange and yellow are invalid concepts, but I do want to make a, uh, uh, another point of last one, there is a kind of limitation on this distinction. Uh, it applies best within the domain of everyday life news, social media, et cetera, in technical epistemology, all statements are subject to evaluation. There's no distinction there, there general principle are evaluated by a, whether they're supported by evidence and B, whether they're true or false, those same standards of evaluation apply to what will you also actual statements and opinions. And that's the grain of truth.
Speaker 1 00:24:15 I think in the, um, the number, no error, number three that I, um, flagged before that there no difference in technical, the smallest is it really isn't, but in the domain of every life, the news media, social media, the distinction really helps us understand how to evaluate claims. Is it a factual claim? Is something a factual claim kind of confirm it by my own observation. Can I look it up or is it claim based on a chain of reasoning and an interpretation on the part of the speaker where it would be a much longer in that analysis investigation or conversation to, um, decide whether we think it's true or false? So, um, you know, it it's within that domain, uh, uh, called live interaction. What, uh, some of you are familiar with, uh, Jonathan Rogers, booklet constitution of law knowledge. It's an important part of the constitution of the practices by which we navigate and look to the right sources for the signing what's true or false.
Speaker 1 00:25:35 And the reason w and I included in the book is that it's important encountering confirmation by the attendants who's left at, uh, the, uh, the value of things in terms of whether you agree with them or not. And indeed just a final thought. The pew study was interesting in that it looked at the different responses of people, Republicans, and Democrats, um, and on some of the things like take the, uh, that last exam or the immigrants are a very big problem for the country today. Many more conservative Republicans conservative said that. Yeah, that's fact that's a fact and the much, uh, that a number of, uh, a greater number of, uh, of people, Democrats and liberals said, no, it's not a fact, that's an opinion and liberals, you know, on other issues, they were, um, democracy is the greatest form of government. Um, I'm not looking at the numbers right now, but the, uh, uh, people on the liberal left would say, oh, that's a fact, a greater number than people on the, on the right. So there is confirmation bias and that's one of the purposes of this study. So I think it's an important issue. Um, but I'll leave it there and, um, are new over to Jennifer and to moderate discussion. Um,
Speaker 0 00:27:15 Great. Thank you, David. Um, so we've got a few of our regulars up on stage with us, including professor Richard Saltzman, professor of economics at duke and a senior scholar at the outlet society. Uh, Debbie is, uh, I believe, uh, David's, co-author on this, um, book that they're working on. So Debbie, welcome to clubhouse. Um, so yes, any, um, just want to remind people, we are going to be recording this for our podcast. Uh, but yeah. Thoughts on what David shared, the difference between fact and opinion, other, maybe examples, um, that are more current, uh, obviously a lot of facts and opinions going on around COVID and, um, what measures mitigate it and what don't. So
Speaker 2 00:28:15 I, I saw, uh, an article that was a scientific study that showed that, uh, you know, if, if women got more, uh, social payments and when they were pregnant, that the babies had more brain activity. And I just saw that as an example of politicized science of just trying to prove that socialism's the best system, but I mean, based on, you know, that being science eventually, you know, is that going to become fat?
Speaker 1 00:28:48 Well, that, that's, that's a great example because it's, it's an experimental result, you know, in science. Um, I didn't mention this, but there are two, uh, the fact opinion distinction is not, not as relevant, a better way as the traditional one, a scientific idea proceeds from being an hypothesis to being, uh, a tested theory. And finally, if, you know, becoming a wall like a wall of reputation, um, but along the way, you know, the scientist has an empirical basis. And, uh, in many, many cases like medicine, biology are hugely complex and the experiments, um, people do all kinds of experiments. Uh, you could say in this case, just to break it and sort of a literal way, the results that they got, um, if assuming that, that there was no fraud involved in the experiment, the results that they got are a matter of fact, but what, what they prove is a matter of opinion, because you have to draw a reasonable conclusion.
Speaker 1 00:30:02 You need corroboration by running. This is a spirit in the experiment be replicated. There's a huge problem with replication, the social sciences. And, uh, if cell, how does it relate to what's the causal connection between money, uh, the mothers, you know, subsidizing the mother and the child's rain activity. I mean, that's, uh, a long chain of causation at most. They could say, well, there's some signs of a correlation, but I'm interpreting that as, as a fat is, it's a long way from being a fact just on the information you've provided. And I S I, I may say it does sound politicized, so
Speaker 4 00:30:54 Yes. Thank you. Uh, David, I have a question that I'd be interested to hear your opinion on, in regards to an older event from two years ago, but I think the situations surrounding it is important to maybe analyze. So there was the MSNBC hosts, Rachel meadow, who was able to beat a libel suit against you regarding what was clear to his Russian propaganda. And while I'm not as concerned about that, what is interesting was the judges standing on why the libel suit was essentially thrown out because he made the claim that reasonable viewers can recognize opinion. So, because of that statement that, oh, people can recognize that this is over the top, or this is just opinion. There's no libel being done here. And considering our discussion here regarding facts, opinion and such, how should we view this sort of case?
Speaker 1 00:32:04 Uh, thanks lawns. I wasn't sure I've heard, um, the whole question. I'm sorry about that. But the, let me, let me make sure I understood the question, um, in that case you're referring to, um, I didn't get the details, but the judge said it was a matter of the statement. Uh, the soup was against someone who made a statement and the judge said, well, um, it's a matter of opinion because everyone would it as such,
Speaker 4 00:32:41 Correct, essentially the libel suit resolve, essentially that this news anchor had repeatedly made claims that Donald Trump was colluding with Russians. And this was that it was a repeated talking point of this individual through all of her news programs. So since it was a continual talking point where she continued to make this assertion, the levels who was over that, and the judge said, regardless, this is just opinion. This is not news. This is not her making a fact
Speaker 1 00:33:23 Yeah. This an interesting, uh, example Lawrence, uh, because in a way it's kind of one of my borderline cases, you know, at whether, um, so I'm colluding with the Russians. It was, uh, there was a long inquiry, um, in my view, loosely motivated, um, which turned out to be, you know, show that there was no evidence of that. And, um, so it's, it sort of depends on when this journalist was making these statements before or after the, uh, uh, the inquiries were completed and even so the inquiries are, you know, quite complex. Um,
Speaker 1 00:34:12 And I don't know enough about libel law to, um, to offer a definite opinion on the opinion on this. Uh, I do know that the law, uh, scholars in the law have struggled to help define what that distinction is. And there are, um, there've been efforts on, I know of a couple, um, from some of the older literature that, um, judges have, uh, offered kind of here are the criteria and they're not very, you know, not pretty good, honestly. Um, so there is a, um, I might, I might actually read with the judge. You said this isn't an opinion because there are certainly, um, other people out there, hopefully other journalists who are, you know, exposing what the problems in this journalist claims. And, um, so I guess I, if in the unlikely event that I was appointed a judge on, on that, in that bench, I would, uh, uh, my inclination from what you've described is to say now it's opinion, I'm ambitious, maybe, but I'm still genuine.
Speaker 5 00:35:43 May I say something?
Speaker 1 00:35:45 Absolutely.
Speaker 5 00:35:47 Okay. Sorry to jump in like this. Um, but I think, uh, I couldn't hear everything Lawrence was saying that the last two comments I thought were very good at pointing out why David and I are taking this topic up in more detail and why we think it's so important and you'll see both of them. And there they're maddening in conversations with people, right? One is the idea that if you present something that's just a straight out matter of empirical fact, whether you know what that is or not. Um, and people who want to treat things that are clearly just matters of fact, is where their opinions. And we're all entitled to our own set of facts somehow, which as David points out would mean we were each living in our own little reality, um, which is insanity of force. Um, on, on the other hand of opinion, um, you get something of an analogous, um, situation that comes up in things that are legitimately matters of opinion, but the people wrongly say, as a student once said to me, um, a few years ago in an ethics class, well, you're when it comes to ethical theories, you just have an opinion like we do, right.
Speaker 5 00:37:24 And I said, well, I haven't, I have opinions, but they're not the same as yours. Um, mine are not pre reflective. They're based on many years of discussion and study and teaching and thinking about these. So not all opinions are like, are picking pizza or something. Um, but they comment about the politicization of science of what should be a scientific matters. Um, I thought was a down on reason why this does make an important difference by being able to specify in some systematic way, um, which David is going to do for us a little bit today of what the difference is between fact and opinion. This is exactly why it matters. We're blurring that distinction so much because of the tendencies towards relative as, um, um, across the board from science to, uh, uh, ethics to, uh, uh,
Speaker 0 00:38:34 Mirror facts of
Speaker 5 00:38:35 Geography in the case of some of my students. So I just wanted to add that.
Speaker 0 00:38:41 Okay, thanks, daddy. I think I, that was very, very helpful because I think we've been focusing a little bit on people who see matters of opinions as facts. So, um, you know, this question about whether there were, there was, uh, election fraud and it had a significant impact that, uh, that that's probably an opinion. Um, but, uh, it could be presented as a fact, but, you know, on the other hand, what you're pointing to is something we focus a lot on, which is, um, subjectivity and postmodernism critical theory. Uh, this idea that really there isn't a, um, objective reality that exists, uh, but that there are just competing truth claims. So I think that was a really helpful addition. Uh, William or Richard, I don't know if you had any views or experience similar to, to Debbie in terms of dealing with your students. So, um, if you do unmute weigh in, thanks.
Speaker 6 00:40:00 Uh, yeah, this is Richard. Um, I think this is very good, David, thank you very much. I think the, uh, I think your, uh, positioning of opinion as something that can be verified and therefore true. I liked that a lot because it just has been a kind of frozen concept of opinion means objective, uh, in the way that Debbie said, I, I hear the same thing. That's just your opinion. But if, if the answer to that is yes, but an opinion, you know, anchored in facts let's discuss, but, but also is it just too simple David to say factual statements are just more concrete there in terms of epistemological reduction of concepts to, uh, concretes are our opinions just higher up conceptually, uh, you know, like the line about democracy is the best form of government democracy, of course, is a huge concept. What does that mean? Even best form suggest a standard. So you're not just, I can see why that statement would be opinion because there's so much high abstraction in it, but yet if it could be verified, um, that is that really the point that they're in different parts of the hierarchical structure of knowledge. That's all, that's not all, but that's the main thing.
Speaker 1 00:41:23 Yeah. Uh, thanks Richard. I, I, uh, I think that you're essentially right, that, um, the reason that opinions require more, um, complex evidence and, um, thinking and integration is usually that they are a higher up in the hierarchy. You have to have a lot of knowledge beforehand, um, hopefully all a bit factual or most of it factual, uh, in order to have, uh, the basis on which to evaluate an opinion. And so, yes, I agree. There are, um, there's some things I'm not, I'm drawing a blank here in my head, but I just that sense as an epistemology is that there are some very, very concrete things that would take a great deal of thought and investigation to establish that are not necessarily higher up way. I'm just, I'm, I'm, I, I have what I can only describe as, as, uh, educated intuition here on that book.
Speaker 1 00:42:34 I haven't thought much about it. So yeah, I would agree largely. And, but I also want to go back to something Debbie said too, that, um, and there's a point that she made in some of our discussions about this, you know, we, um, and considering whether this is a valid distinction to begin with, um, you know, that's the philosophical philosophers, um, view that there's no difference, no difference. They're all just propositions. And we know how to resist single standard for evaluating any prompt position. However, um, Debbie pointed this out. If you deny the distinction in today's culture, what that it leads to is people think it will everything's opinion. And, uh, that is, uh, an invitation to relativism subjectivism, uh, and you know, the road to perdition. So, um, I thank you JAG for introducing that issue about some objects. Um, so anyway, I'll leave, I'll leave that there,
Speaker 6 00:43:45 David, it might be worth adding. Also, I looked at the pew research website on this, and it's, it's really interesting cause they don't really classify opinion statements in their survey when they tell people what the difference is, factual statement opinion statement. It's very interesting because they say a factual statement is, and they're telling the surveyors that those will being surveyed regardless of whether it was accurate or not choose the classification. Do you think could be proved or disproved based on objective evidence and under opinion statement? They say, whether you agree with the statement or not, do you think it's quote based on the values and beliefs of the journalist or the source making the statement and could not definitively be proved or disproved based on objective evidence unquote, whereas you're saying no, we should allow for opinion statements to be provable disprovable in objective evidence. It's interesting that pew didn't really allow for that. Um, so I don't know if that skews the survey results, but pew itself is assuming opinion statements cannot be supported by objective evidence, Which is weird.
Speaker 0 00:45:01 Thank you, Richard. It's Mr. Sweat. It's kind of scratchy. They're not in a great place. Yeah, unfortunately. Okay. Sorry. I'm going to mute you and hopefully have the clearest signal in a bit.
Speaker 7 00:45:36 Okay. Let me just start here.
Speaker 0 00:45:39 Yes, we hear you. Okay.
Speaker 7 00:45:42 Um, so I came in late, so I might not have all the context here, but, um, I think I understand what the general theme here is. And, uh, I wanna address a couple issues. One is about what is an opinion. And I think it could be just that it's trying to offer, um, like a class of, um, statements. So, you know, how we have a certain statement, a possible, possibly true statement or probably true statement or an arbitrary statement, maybe an opinion is just an uncertain statement and it can fall into any of those categories. It can be arbitrary, it could be probable or it could be possible. Um, and that we're an opinion is just the way to classify those into a group. Um, so that's one idea. The other one is ran. I ran, I ran, wrote an article called, um, who is the final authority and ethics.
Speaker 7 00:46:44 And she kind of tried to address the issue of like, who determines what is right and wrong. And she said that in metaphysics, it boils down to just recognizing reality is reality as the arbiter, but in a it's, you know, you're all you have to use your own mind and judgment to determine what is true. And if that's the case, then how would like a division of labor, um, affect the problem of not achieving certainty, like, or not being able to be the final arbiter when it comes to determining truth, because if are in your own little world doing your job in the division of labor, you're not going to be able to gather all the evidence you need to understand or come to your, your own decision on what is true and all these other areas of life. And you're kind of dependent on other people for authorities. Um, so any thoughts on that?
Speaker 1 00:47:53 Um, sure. Thank you, William. Um, both good questions. Uh, let me take up the first one about, um, opinion is defined in terms of the spectrum from possibility probability certainty. Um, I would say that that spectrum is orthogonal. It's, it's a different issue. Um, I think opinions can be certain or only probable, um, depending on the degree of evidence. Uh, I am certain that human beings have a right to life. Uh, that's an opinion, uh, to philosophical, uh, view and political philosophy, but I wouldn't, I I've thought I'm, I spent a lot of large part of my life thinking about that, talking about it, comparing it with other views. And so I, I would claim certainty for that, um, resume things that, um, are factual statements that I don't know whether they're true or not. I have only, you know, I can make an, a probability guests, um, but I, I'm not certain about them.
Speaker 1 00:49:03 So I think they're, they're really different issues, um, on rants essay, the final authority in ethics. I, I, um, I haven't read that for a long time, so, um, but I'm a little surprised that your description of a debt in metaphysics reality decides, but in the physiology we use reasoning. I mean, metaphysics is, is like a piston ecology of branch of knowledge. And so both of them involve, uh, required the use of reason to identify what's true in the world and, uh, in metaphysics. And what's true about our means of cognition and systemology so if I've understood you, I'm sorry. Um, you're welcome to clarify, but that's just that's would be my take,
Speaker 8 00:49:58 We try to reach she's asking.
Speaker 7 00:50:24 Okay. So she says in the article, um, who is the final authority in matters pertaining to human knowledge? Um, well she says that metaphysically, the only authority is reality. Epistemologically one's own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second.
Speaker 1 00:50:51 Okay. Okay. Yes. Yeah. I remember that now. I think what you saying is, you know, knowledge is knowledge of reality. So whether a statement is Pru, uh, whether it is a question of whether, does it recognize the fact of reality? Um, so the facts of reality are out there in the world, that's metaphysics, but identifying them, um, physiologically the authority is since the facts don't reveal themselves to us magically, uh, we have to investigate and find out and there, from that standpoint, if you see this mythological question, how do we know the facts of reality? The answer would be my means of reason. And that, that would be my take on her statement there. Yeah. Thanks. Great question.
Speaker 9 00:51:49 Yes. Can you hear me? Yes. Awesome. Thank you. Yeah, this is my first time to use clubhouse. So, um, just want to make sure that I use the correctly. Um, so I got a PhD in mathematics and, uh, you know, based on my scientific training, um, you can get that to me. There's very few facts in real life actually. Um, I understand how we can even look at the same data and come up with a different conclusion and because just based on, you know, different, you know, uh, interpretations for that, uh, which is fine. However, I've been seeing in a scientific area that more and more scientists that they try to publish what I would call a partial facts that might lead to like how, like the audience will want, uh, how they want the audience to think about some of their strong opinions. Like, um, this has been happening for a long while, even when I was a PhD at duke.
Speaker 9 00:52:55 And when I talked to some of my fellow peer students in the biology department, they would tell me that, yes, they did an experiment a hundred time fail, 99% of the time. And they only published that one result when it was successful and we cannot call them a fraud or something, but somehow it's just like, it concerns me, uh, in a sense like if scientists are trying to, you know, get into area and try to extend their power too much into like, trying to, like, I wouldn't say Mandy puree, but, you know, just like kind of tried to influence how out of people think about some specific thing from a specific angle. So I wonder how do you think about this? What's your opinion on that?
Speaker 1 00:53:47 Um, my opinion is, uh, you got there a lot of things I could say. I, I, I'm not in the scientist myself. And, um, although I dipped into some of the, some fields of science, most of the social science psychology, and I know that there, I had referred to earlier kids, replication, replication, crisis, um, there's also cherry picking results. Um, uh, you know, like you say, running an experiment 99 times, it fails to confirm your hypothesis, but you only publish the one that, uh, provide some evidence there's there, there's a movement against that, by saying before you run an experiment, um, you have to say what your experiment, what you, what your hypothesis is and what would establish it if the experiment succeeds in doing that fine. If not, you know, you, you, you have, you have to make that clear to, to your colleagues or whatever.
Speaker 1 00:54:51 I don't know how exactly this works, but I I've heard, uh, people in, uh, biology and psychology talk about it. Um, but there, there is, um, on a larger scale, um, there's a problem with, um, partiality in, uh, politically, you know, a lot of journalism and popular culture discussions. Um, you know, there's the old distinction that there's lying by commission telling a lie, and there's lying by omission, leaving out something, you know, is relevant. And, um, I think a lot of journalists are now, um, lying by omission because they, um, they're selecting generalism doodles have to be selective in what they write in the facts that they report, but are rational and less rational, objective and objective ways of making that selection. And you can, um, lie by leaving out relevant facts. I see this all the time in journalism. So I think your point is good. And, um, it's on the scientific front. It's a problem. I, I know some people were trying to address and I hope, I hope it would become more common to expose this kind of, uh, uh, really dishonest, um, scientific inquiry, Whether or not it's politically motivated or not. But I think it often is.
Speaker 0 00:56:29 Thank you. Thanks, Lizzy. Welcome. Uh, and thanks, uh, William. Thanks, Richard. Thank you so much, Debbie, Scott Lawrence, uh, also want to thank all of you who joined, including professor Stephen Hicks, who's in the audience. Um, great conversation. I want to, I, I just, uh, pinned up here at the top. Um, this is a forum that, uh, professor Salzman has with the Atlas society, morals and markets, uh, and it's it's for students. So if you are in the student age range and want to join, then, um, then please do, if you are, uh, a lifelong student, um, then, uh, join us just please, um, audit and, and keep your screen off because we are trying to create a peer group experience for, for our young people. Um, also wanted to let you know, next week we have our schedule changed up a little bit on, um, Tuesday, we have the clubhouse with Rob Sinski, what is human major? Uh, and then I'm going to be having a conversation on Wednesday and our weekly webinar with Ashley Lindsburg, he's written the book, the gray lady winked looking at speaking of fact, versus opinion. Um, it's an interesting lens to, to look at his subject matter of the New York times historically, um, and, uh, misreporting and errors and misrepresentations. And then, uh, again on Wednesday, we're going to have a clubhouse chat and ask me anything on ethics with professor Hicks. So hope to see you all there. And again, thanks for joining.
