Facts vs. Opinions: The Spectrum of Validity

Epistemology can be a very tricky subject. Like other difficult-to-grasp concepts, or you might say "like training wheels", we teach our children a dumbed-down version that they will (hopefully) one day replace or refine with a more complex, more accurate understanding as their cognitive abilities mature.

Most adults grasp the notion of what a fact is (even if they are republicans and pretend not to). In the technical jargon, a positive statement is an assertion that can be proven objectively either true or false. If it is true, it's a "fact," and if it is false, it's "incorrect" (or possibly even a "lie" in the case that the person making the false assertion intends to deceive or is a republican).

Opinions are more tricky. Opinions are not positive statements -- they are normative statements, that is, they reflect "norms." Opinions are not objectively verifiable; rather, they are subjective. Unlike positive statements, which are either valid (that is, true) or invalid (that is, false), normative statements exist along a SPECTRUM OF VALIDITY, which is to say, some of them are more valid than others.

The Spectrum of Validity

This is where people tend to get hung up. "But isn't everyone's opinion just as valid as anyone else's?" they ask.

"No," I will answer. "That is obviously stupid."

"But if you cannot prove objectively whether an opinion is true or false, who is to say whether it is 'valid'?" they retort.

"Ah, I'm glad you asked," says I. Here's the thing: unlike facts, the validity of opinions is based on (a) the evidence backing them up and (b) the expertise of the person holding them.

Ergo, to use a hypothetical, the opinion of a child that "Frozen is a great movie!" is not as valid as that of a professional film critic who asserts otherwise. The hypothetical child has almost no expertise -- she has only seen four or five films in her life. The hypothetical professional film critic, on the other hand, holds an MFA in Film Studies from a reputable university and has seen thousands of films. In layman's terms, the film critic "knows what she is talking about"; the child does not. When pressed for evidence to back up her opinion, the child cannot offer anything more than one or two sentences about liking this or that character, or liking this or that moment. The film critic, on the other hand, must provide five or six paragraphs of evidence to back up her opinion (and must get them to her editor by 11:00 or she'll be fired).

After hearing it explained in this way, most people understand. "But," they will ask, "what about the case of two film critics who disagree?" Indeed! This is perhaps the trickiest aspect of the Spectrum of Validity. Since the validity of opinions is derived from the weight of the experience and expertise behind them, two opinions can be in dispute while still having equal validity!

Another way of phrasing this concept is that facts are mutually exclusive, whereas opinions are not. Two opinions may disagree with one another and yet both be just as "right." This allows for a never-ending dialogue between equally valid (if mutually dissenting) opinions, for a recognition and discussion of the differing norms / values / criteria that form the basis of those opinions, and also for a never-ending "arms race" in the pursuit of evidence and expertise to lend increased validity to those opinions.

What this DOES NOT mean is that everyone gets to chime in with their own opinion and that it will be accepted and respected regardless of how stupid or invalid it may be. While everyone is certainly entitled to his opinion, not every opinion is equally valid. Likewise, if your opinion cannot be justified or defended, you may not actually be expressing an opinion so much as just passing gas.