Are people entitled to their own facts?

[Chikombo]

Like are people allowed to think the earth is flat?
I think to some extent you should be able to think that...

 

[Cfighter]

People are certainly entitled to their own opinions, but facts are just that: fact.

 

[Gerkak]

There are differences between facts and an opinions.

As Cfighter said, people are entitled to their own opinions.

An opinion is just a view, how you choose to feel or think about something or someone.

A fact is an idea that is backed with some evidence, it might not be 100% accurate but it has the support of something tangible and objective

 

[kimb]

Nope, but I've encountered people both irl and online (even on this forum) that will argue that truth is a subjective matter. If truth is subjective, facts are subjective, and if facts are subjective, everyone's entitled to their own set of facts.

 

[Markovko]

Of course they are free to think that Earth is flat, but to truly think that, they are simply ignorant, because facts (thing that is backed up with proof) are against them.

 

[Aim64C]

The question is: "What is a fact?"

Generally speaking, something like Gravity is a fact. If I step off of a cliff, I will fall (probably to my death). It would be quite the exception to the understood rules if someone were to step off of a cliff and not immediately begin falling as the law of gravity says they should. It's possible there is some exception to gravity out there that we have yet to find or stumble upon, but barring such an exception, it is an understood fact that an object released without support will fall to the ground. We call this "Gravity" - but that is actually stretching the fact beyond our ability to describe it, as there are many theories as to what force(s) produce the law of gravity.

Different people have different standards for what they consider to be a "fact." Some would consider the measured diameter of the Milky Way Galaxy to be a fact. I would argue it is an estimate based on several theories that postulate the lights in the sky are other stars and that our methods of measuring the distance to them is accurate. This sliding scale of what people consider facts determines, generally, their world view. There are many things, taken as 'established fact' by many in the world of academia, which I contest are mere theory, often supported by little more than institutional dogma.

Because of this, it is proper to say that, within the discussion of mostly academic subjects - such as theories and debates where little experimentation can be done, then people are entitled to their own facts. They are allowed to believe Gravity is a fundamental force produced by gravitons or higgs bosons. Whatever helps them sleep at night. However, they are not entitled to believing that they can simply step off of a cliff without falling because the law of gravity doesn't apply to them. Since most subjects exist in the middle of these two extremes, people have a very subjective view of what is and is not a factually-based viewpoint.

Until such a point as the mechanisms of the universe can smite us for our held views, we are 'entitled' to our own understanding of what is and is not a fact. Of course, this enters a whole new world of problems when the discussion is trying to determine what is and isn't a fact about human society and behavior... when those facts are then used to create policy and deprive people of freedom, life, and property....

 

[Cfighter]

Nope, but I've encountered people both irl and online (even on this forum) that will argue that truth is a subjective matter. If truth is subjective, facts are subjective, and if facts are subjective, everyone's entitled to their own set of facts.

By the very definition of the word, fact cannot be subjective. Fire is hot - that is a fact, regardless of if someone personally believes otherwise.

 

[Aim64C]

By the very definition of the word, fact cannot be subjective. Fire is hot - that is a fact, regardless of if someone personally believes otherwise.

Compared to the intensity of a something like a quasar, a standard wood fire is relatively cool. Even by terrestrial standards, a wood fire is insufficient for the smelting of steel. The blast furnace uses the heated carbon monoxide from the forge to strip oxygen and other compounds from the incoming coal and further reduce it to a pure carbon fuel source, which burns far hotter.

A fact would be: "That fire has an emission spectra of [chart] with the following intensities [graph]." Those facts could then be used to determine what the equilibrium temperature for the surface area of your hand was at a given distance from the fire, and therefor at what range you could hold your hand before it would begin to 'burn.' Of course, since blood is circulating through your hand and the body can use the rest of the skin to radiate heat and throw that equilibrium calculation off, a bit, the data should only be considered an approximation, rather than an absolute.

 

[kimb]

By the very definition of the word, fact cannot be subjective. Fire is hot - that is a fact, regardless of if someone personally believes otherwise.

Exactly. I was laying out their line of reasoning, not mine persay. We're on the same page.

You chose a bad example in claiming fire is hot is a fact, though. Aim64C laid out why in great detail.

 

[Cfighter]

Compared to the intensity of a something like a quasar, a standard wood fire is relatively cool. Even by terrestrial standards, a wood fire is insufficient for the smelting of steel. The blast furnace uses the heated carbon monoxide from the forge to strip oxygen and other compounds from the incoming coal and further reduce it to a pure carbon fuel source, which burns far hotter.

A fact would be: "That fire has an emission spectra of [chart] with the following intensities [graph]." Those facts could then be used to determine what the equilibrium temperature for the surface area of your hand was at a given distance from the fire, and therefor at what range you could hold your hand before it would begin to 'burn.' Of course, since blood is circulating through your hand and the body can use the rest of the skin to radiate heat and throw that equilibrium calculation off, a bit, the data should only be considered an approximation, rather than an absolute.

I think you're over-complicating the point lol

Exactly. I was laying out their line of reasoning, not mine persay. We're on the same page.

You chose a bad example in claiming fire is hot is a fact, though. Aim64C laid out why in great detail.

Perhaps it was a bad example; It was just the first thing that popped into my head.

 

[kimb]

I think you're over-complicating the point lol


Perhaps it was a bad example; It was just the first thing that popped into my head.

I understood what you meant. It's all good.

 

[Avani 👑]

No one is "entitled" to be ignorant and call personal opinion a fact.

 

[Azarath Metrion Zinthos]

If there is someone challenging the heliocentric model of the earth, that already says it isn't fact the earth is ball-shaped. Facts are fire is gas, water is liquid, the earth is solid, etc. You cannot challenge them because they are observable and aren't built on theories following theories, like our scholarly model of the earth.

 

[HowDidIGetPrem]

Yea. People are allowed to have different facts since facts only qualify as facts if they're interpreted as facts. Saying they aren't would be to say they can't interpret ideas differently than me.

If there is someone challenging the heliocentric model of the earth, that already says it isn't fact the earth is ball-shaped. Facts are fire is gas, water is liquid, the earth is solid, etc. You cannot challenge them because they are observable and aren't built on theories following theories, like our scholarly model of the earth.

Even if we all see the same thing, what they actually are can still be challenged. The only difference from the heliocentric model is that you're confident these examples are facts because they're easier to observe with the eyes. If we were to distinguish what are hard facts and theories just by what our eyes see, things like the concept of gas & electricity would be on the debate table simply because there's more to interpret differently. You got shocked, but, instead of saying the cause is electricity, you make up a new word & concept then attribute that shock to it.

A child cannot count add properly, so he challenges the idea that 1 + 1 = 2.

 

[Azarath Metrion Zinthos]

Yea. People are allowed to have different facts since facts only qualify as facts if they're interpreted as facts. Saying they aren't would be to say they can't interpret ideas differently than me.


Even if we all see the same thing, what they actually are can still be challenged. The only difference from the heliocentric model is that you're confident these examples are facts because they're easier to observe with the eyes. If we were to distinguish what are hard facts and theories just by what our eyes see, things like the concept of gas & electricity would be on the debate table simply because there's more to interpret differently. You got shocked, but, instead of saying the cause is electricity, you make up a new word & concept then attribute that shock to it.

A child cannot count add properly, so he challenges the idea that 1 + 1 = 2.

I get your point of view. What you've said though cements further that facts can be subjective, and therefore are a malleable truth. My example was flawed, but I don't don't think I was wrong in my line of thought. One of the elements contributing to a fact is they are observable. The elements go on, such as provable, comprehensible, etc. But I'm no linguist neither are you, I believe, so we can't say much if we cannot begin to define what a fact is.

 

[Cornson]

Are people entitled to their own facts?

The answer: No.

The facts are the facts, you not choicing to believe them, now that is something you are entitled to, you can believe in what ever you want to believe in, however it does not make what you believe in true just because you believe it.
And it does not make what is factually correct wrong just because you believe something else.

 

[fiercerunner]

At the moment, everyone has freedom of thought. If you want to believe something that has no evidence, you can, but it'd be incorrect to call it 'your fact.' Facts are objective truths. For example, if you think yourself a female, but are biologically a male, it's a fact that you are a male.