Hehe, alright, stick with me here, I have a lot of explaining to do to show my stance with this. I recently had a discussion with one of my pals concerning what makes a fact a fact and that if public opinion on a matter is agreed upon a certain thing being
so, then it can be considered a fact and referred to as so in conversation. Although it isn't
technically a fact, it can be considered so.
That leaves me believing there are two different kinds of facts.
Irrefutable facts where if an opinion that believes something other than the fact exists, then it isn't a viable opinion because it doesn't have any sort of stance to say otherwise.
For example, if I am holding two apples in my hand and someone says that it's their opinion that I have three apples, then it is not a viable opinion because the irrefutable fact is that there are indeed two apples. At that point in time, no amount of faith or believing will change the amount of apples in my hand because it is static and undeniably true. No opinions can be had on this. I parallel this with things like statistics and the like. Things that can be proven without question are also lumped in here. Things like ketchup is made with tomatoes, a certain guitar will make a noise if strummed, a certain person existed because physically evidence of them existing (children, DNA, corpse) is there to be found.
Now along with that kind of fact, I believe there is a kind of fact that is formed from a massive amount of opinions believing the same thing on a debatable matter. This can be something like stating "Hitler was a bad person" as a fact even though it can be debated he was not and that opinion would still be viable because of peoples' varying experiences and influences. In their position, he very well may BE a good person, but the fact of it is is that he is a BAD person because such an overwhelming majority of people believe it to be so, making it fact. The percentage of people that truly hold the opinion he was a good person is ridiculously smaller than those that hold the contrary opinion. Therefore, in conversation or reference, it should be stated as a fact that Hitler was a bad person.
Now that I've stated a mass of opinions can become a fact, surely there must be a line drawn somewhere to ultimately distinguish how many opinions it takes to convert it to a fact, right? It's not really a matter of black or white, more of big or little. It varies based on the topic at hand.
For example, my pal and I enjoy the series on the internet made by Freddy Wong called Video Game High School. It's a clever premise and it's done well for a show that's made on the internet. But for someone to say that VGHS is a better show than F.R.I.E.N.D.S. would be wrong. I say it would be wrong because the amount of people that hold the opinion VGHS is better at being a show than Friends is miniscule compared to the contrary. You could say "I believe VGHS to be a better show than Friends." because it is stating it as an opinion and not as a fact. Although the real fact her is that Friends is the better show based on the things that apply to what makes a show a better show. All of these things factor into peoples' overarching opinions and when it comes down to it, many many more people would believe Friends to be the better show. The factors that influence that opinion can be almost anything from the talent of the cast, the success of the show, the budget that went into the show, timelessness, and etc.. You can like VGHS as much as you like (and I think it's pretty great), but to argue it is a better show than Friends (which I'm not really a fan of) would just be wrong because so many people believe it to be wrong.
Now what if you haven't watched Friends? Would your opinion that VGHS is better apply? I wouldn't think so at least. Without proper acknowledgement of both sides of the argument, it would be impossible to form a proper opinion on Friends comparatively. The opinion doesn't apply if neither shows have been watched either.
Now what if both sides of the opinion are close to the same size? That means that no facts can be agreed upon by an overwhelming majority. There are no facts, just opinions to be debated as both sides are nearly equally as viable as the other.
I dunno, am I crazy here?
I know it'd take so many problems away if I just agreed that a fact formed from overwhelming opinion wasn't a fact at all, but I can't help myself. I just want to hear some thoughts, I don't expect anyone to agree with me, hehe, just thought it was interesting to think about. And let me say that a fact formed from overwhelming opinion isn't
technically a fact, but I believe it should be treated the same as a fact.
[edit] Oh wow, sorry for the wall of text, I think this may be the biggest post I've ever made.
