Colin asked:

What if anything is the difference between fact and opinion?

============

Philosophically and logically there is a very big difference. Facts are associated with reality and
knowledge, opinions with belief and estimation. It is a problem which comes within the bounds of
epistemology (The Theory of Knowledge). The problems of truth and knowledge have occupied the
minds of philosophers since ancient times. Theories put forward have been many and varied, each
having its supporters and its critics. My personal preferences include ideas developed by Bertrand
Russell and Ludwig Wittgenstein. Neither of these great philosophers is easy to understand and both
have been, and still are, open to misinterpretation.

The naive concept of a fact is a relationship between a statement and what is presumed to be reality.
In everyday life observed things are taken to be facts, such as chairs, trees, rocks and water, etc.: but
this is not the case, such objects are 'things,' facts are states of affairs.'Facts are in 'logical space,' as
opposed to 'things' in space and time. (Wittgenstein). For example, 'this chair' is not a fact, but 'there
is a chair in this room' is a fact. Facts can be pictured in the mind and expressed in language,
therefore, we are able to state negative facts; which confirms what was said earlier, that facts do not
necessarily depend on direct observation in space and time. Therefore, the proposition 'there might
be a table in this room' is a fact, even though there is no table to be seen.

When facts are expressed as propositions they can be true or false; if the proposition, 'there is a chair
in this room' coincides with the existing 'state of affairs,' then the proposition is true. If, however, the
proposition, 'there is no table in this room' does not coincide with the state of affairs that there is a
table in this room, then the proposition is false.

Facts then possess internal structures of objects juxtaposed with conditions like relationships and
properties. Though it must be accepted that facts themselves are abstract even when their
constituents are not!! Alleged moral facts are more problematical, thus the alleged fact 'thugs should
not beat up old ladies' seems self evident. However, the proposition expressing the alleged fact would
have to be proved logically before it could be accepted, The fact only becomes confirmed when this
conclusion 'thugs should not beat up old ladies' is seen to follow from its supporting premisses. This,
of course, is a major problem in moral philosophy, establishing the premisses on which to base a
moral statement can be extremely difficult, and we often get into what is called, 'infinite regression.' A
simple example is, "Don't do this," "Why?" "Because God said so." "Who is God?" "The creator of the
universe." "Who created him?" "A super power." "Who created the super power?" etc. etc.
etc..Therefore we see that what are sometimes claimed as facts in moral arguments are more likely
to be opinions, where we are merely saying, 'I believe this, you believe it also.'

A point to consider is that beliefs could turn out to be true/ factual, although we can see no way of
obtaining evidence either for or against. Errors can be made in producing facts when we move from
perception to judgement, if we do not interpret the perception properly. This is how we sometimes get
into confrontational arguments. Opinions can also turn out to be true or false, a well considered
opinion could be based on certain facts and just might turn out to be right.

John Brandon