Read on Twitter
I feel like going on a bit of a thought-wander, and I'm partly inspired by this article, which is quite good. I want to disentangle opinion, arguments, facts, and interpretations. https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978
The Daniel Patrick Moynihan quote, "You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts," is a true statement that can get twisted by the insincere. Someone once spewed a bunch of racist nonsense at me and then said, "Those are *facts*, Orion!"
They weren't, though. They constituted an ~interpretation~ of facts (historical events that had occurred) and the interpretation was faulty because it was rooted in stereotype, used circular reasoning, and left out 75% of the relevant details.
Here's the breakdown. Stokes (above) separates "opinion" into three valences: 1) subjective preference, 2) public policy, and 3) expert interpretation. People acting in bad-faith often present preference(1) as if they were expertise(3) to push public policy(2); eg, anti-vaxxers.
In academia, we call both (2) and (3) ~arguments~, not opinions, meaning we've examined evidence, applied some kind of methodology, and then arrived at a conclusion. This terminology and formulation implies technical conclusions, certainty, but that's not always available!
That's where ~interpretation~ comes in. It's a great word to describe when people can look at the very same facts and disagree. It doesn't mean they're equally right by default! Far from it! It means that there's a legitimate dispute that should be resolved.
That said, some interpretations have ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED, so we don't need to rehearse them. The interpretation that person insisted to me was "facts" was that the British Empire "brought culture" to India.
Fuckin' yikes. I told they already had one, by the way.
Fuckin' yikes. I told they already had one, by the way.
To wrap things up, facts are things that have been established as true, and they usually refer to things that aren't a matter of interpretation. So it's a *fact* that colonization was a brutal exercise in mass-murder and genocide. It's an interpretation that we should STOP THAT.
My point is, the next time someone insists that they're dealing in "facts," take a second to break it down.
What are the facts?
What are the interpretations?
What is their actual argument?
Are they mixing purely subjective opinion in?
Has this argument already been resolved?
What are the facts?
What are the interpretations?
What is their actual argument?
Are they mixing purely subjective opinion in?
Has this argument already been resolved?
