Not all opinions are created equal. Whilst it is axiomatic that “opinions are like assholes – everyone has one”, there are the ones that are based on an analysis of the facts as they are known; a considered opinion. And then are the ones that are hot air, polemical, unencumbered by any relationship with truth. Facts and the truth have been referenced and, immediately, we are thrown into turbulent waters.
How many times have you heard “We must (insert action)” or “It's essential that we...”, when listening to political figures, pundits or when taking in what the Twitterati have to offer? And how often was there a comprehensible preamble or genuine facts used as justification, some sort of foundational belief articulated, that validated the exhortation? Was it simply an opinion, untethered from reality? A belief taken as a statement of fact?
Sifting facts from opinion is vital, if you're the type of person who prefers to base their views on the verifiable. However, “what most people do is take a position very soon after being presented with an issue and then accumulate evidence and reasoning to justify that position.”(1)
It seems that so much of modern discourse is dogmatic opinion and the basis for the opinion has either been forgotten, is anyway unchallenged and/or may never have existed in the first place. Facts are unfashionable, because we all have our own version of reality nowadays. Absolute truths are yesterday's delusion; in the more enlightened present, we espouse relative values and anyone who doesn't subscribe to that belief system is regressive, unenlightened, almost certainly a bigot and may very well be a racist (anyone who isn't on board is automatically a racist, eventually).
And, no, it isn't always appropriate to footnote your message with citations – there are many forums where a mutual acceptance of certain beliefs is necessary in order to enhance impact or when time is short; political speeches, commands in the midst of an emergency, discussions among experts and so on.
There are also, obviously, many situations where such strictures don't apply and there is the space for the presentation of a reasoned position and yet the opportunity is frequently spurned. Is it simply laziness? Is it because the case cannot reasonably be made? A symptom of “We Know Best” disease and all that matters is that the end is justified and so, therefore, are the means?
We used to believe that certain truths are self evident. We used to believe that facts matter. If we don't all believe those things now, does it mean that they aren't still true?
It is not my intention to dive too deeply into the philosophical well, for fearing of drowning. However, if nothing is absolute or true, if everything is relative, we do not have a common frame of reference; we do not have the ability to reach agreement and, ultimately, we will not be able to govern ourselves, because everyone has an opinion and they are all equally valid. So, who gets to decide what should be allowed and what shouldn't be allowed? Well, whoever currently holds the whip hand. It simply becomes all about power, consent be damned.
It is true that some 'facts' seem to change, but they were either never really facts to begin with or they were facts whose significance had been inflated or confused and this became apparent when more information came to light. A degree of caution needs to be exercised when asserting facts, as there are times when more information will emerge and that information will change understanding.
Facts like who was the first human, what is the quantity of dark matter? It could usefully be said that truths about these subjects that are now discredited were truths existing in a void, merely a work in progress, narratives that fitted with evidence that was currently available. Naturally flowing from this proposition is the idea that a belief based on facts needs to be reviewed periodically, in case things have changed.
However, facts are an abstract: they do exist. Things happened, things exist. The nature of fact doesn't change. At some point in the distant past, the first human ancestor (of whatever definition) came into being. That actually happened. It's just that we may never have enough information to determine when that was and we should have enough humility to admit that and to refrain from definitive statements where none are justified.
Then we have other facts, such as the fact that the attack on Pearl Harbor was a complete surprise to the US. Except that it wasn't, as the US had intercepted over 80 Japanese signals that clearly showed that the Japanese were en route to Hawaii with a battle fleet. (2) So, the fact (the truth) was that the US knew the attack was coming. It is also true that this information was not relayed to the Admiral on the scene.
What isn't fact, but is opinion instead (in the absence of any more information), is the why of it. Circumstantial evidence may lead one to believe that FDR allowed the attack to happen in order to ensure that American public opinion was galvanized into support for a US declaration of war, a support which had previously been conspicuous by its absence. But that is an opinion; it may be well informed, but it is still an opinion.
Sometimes the evidence is circumstantial, sometimes definitive. Notice should be given, attention drawn to sources. The reader/listener should be able to discern the facts. Too often a narrative has been written and evidence cherry picked and shoehorned in. An experienced reader may notice this, seeing unevenness. The naïve reader may not. As a working hypothesis, it seems sensible to hold that whenever someone conflates facts and opinion and does so in a way that creates a false impression, they are trying to sell you a pup.
So, sifting fact from opinion and informed opinion from nonsensical opinion can be complicated. This shouldn't be a surprise, because there are opportunities here for bad actors, people who wish to deceive. And it is certainly true that it is difficult to find the truth in today's world. Experts, doctors and scientists among them, used to be trusted implicitly. Now, not so much. Whether they should ever have enjoyed the trust they did is a debate for another day, but for a significant number of people they now have as much credibility as politicians, used car salesmen and realtors.
But, facts still exist and can still be found. It may take a little more time than it used to and certainly more time than it should, but it can be done. In all likelihood, you will have to check sources yourself sometimes. You will have to become an experienced reader, to recognize when you are being led astray. But without facts, without some mutually recognized truths, we are all at sea.
And, once you have identified what you believe to be true, you need to be courageous in defending it. Open to new information, yes. Willing to adapt if facts are augmented, yes. You'll probably find that opposition will be founded on ad hominem attacks or the usual opinions masquerading as facts. Rarely will you have to get into the detail, because the detail isn't where they have an advantage. But the truth, unfashionable though it sounds, is still important.
(1) John Lee, Spectator Magazine
(2) Robert Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor
Highlights some of the issues about bias. Having a bias based on no facts is fundamentally flawed. Confirmation bias (as said in the article) where you pick and chose your facts is arguably worse. Presenting an argument constructed in this manner from a position of power can seriously mislead people and influence behaviour. It also can encourage them to automatically reject any evidence to the contrary.