Do you think we are in worse trouble today compared to previous eras? I sometimes think humans are addicted to crisis. We almost seem to need a belief in a coming apocalypse and given we have been primed for this by politics, religion and decades of innumerable movies and TV shows (zombie apocalypses, sci-fi dystopias), it's no surprise.

As you suggest, one man's opinion is another's fact and visa versa. But if we don't argue over that then we will argue over what method we can use to determine what makes it into Fact City and what is banished to the badlands. I'm not entirely sure we need to worry. I doubt that pluralism or difference of itself is the problem. It's how difference and diversity is managed, which is a separate issue. And I wonder too if this isn't yet another thread about the nature of truth.

Thank you for your thoughtful post. I don't have a problem with having a diversity of opinions. What I have a problem with is how living things are treated. I would like all living things to be nonconsumers, but that is impossible. So, I am a vegan. I think everyone should be a vegan but everyone does not agree with this view. I think the Earth should be one egalitarian country where religions and government are separate. However, everyone does not share my view. While I don't murder people over having different views there are those who do. I am upset about all suffering, inequality, injustice, and death but no matter how helpful I am, I can't make all living things forever happy. I have saved and improved many lives but I can't save and improve all lives - I find this very distressing.

Obviously the difference ought to be clear, but it's our natural desire to be rational and logical that we have the tendency of using facts rather than opinions. And also that we denounce someones facts as mere opinions, correctly or incorrectly. And when you have misinformation and disinformation widely used as effective tools for propaganda or marketing, it really may look like the difference between facts, opinions and outright lies is confused.

Yet even our Science is based on theories, so basically a lot more would be strictly defined to be opinions. Of course even if we don't exaclty understand everything about gravity, we can assume that jumping off from a ten-floor building isn't good for our health. Hence those theories aren't so wildly off from reality.

It's a limited number of topics where we admit that we only have opinions. Like for example art or beauty are subjects where we understand that there aren't concrete facts on just what is art or what is beautiful. In everything else we just crave for facts to base our rational thinking and decision making.

Yes, it is tricky.

I have saved and improved many lives but I can't save and improve all lives - I find this very distressing. — Truth Seeker

Perhaps it's not so much a question of facts versus opinion but a matter of values and worldviews. And whether it is realistic for you to want people to share your worldview.

From a Stoic perspective, there's no point worrying about that over which you have no power. I generally hold that life is a bucket of shit for many people on earth, even the successful ones, and I sleep fairly soundly knowing that virtually none of this is in my control.

I sometimes think humans are addicted to crisis. — Tom Storm

:up:

To the extent our "conflicts" are not violent (e.g. win-win), they facilitate our searching for – not our ever finding "unquestionable" – truthes (re: dialectics), that is, potentially learning from mistakes errors & failures as we cross-examine one another's assumptions and mutual testing of our competing, or contrary, claims. Absent this Sisyphusean agon (i.e. 'the unexamined life is not worth living'), how else can we – at least some small yet nontrivial fraction of the eight billion of us – thrive (flourish)?

I think that if we could work out what is fact and what is opinion, it would help us get on with each other better. — Truth Seeker

It never has. Conflicting opinions arise from the very same facts (Some people speak French, while some people speak English). More importantly, conflicting interests arise from the same physical reality (Some people live on a plot of fertile land; some other people want to live there.) We don't go to war over facts; we go to war over emotions (anger, greed and fear, mostly) or because we loyally and stupidly follow leaders, or because we subscribe to different stories. (God likes us and doesn't approve of them)

Turns out, the truth rarely sets anyone free; it's far more likely to land them in jail.

I worry that we will destroy ourselves and all the other species with our conflicts. — Truth Seeker

I think it's inevitable. At least, wiping out most of us and them - odds are, something will remain and start over. But probably not a bunch a altruistic vegans, alas!
https://quillandquire.com/review/oryx-and-crake/

Lots of things are outside our control. I tried to be stoical about it but I failed. Perhaps I failed because I am currently depressed. I scored 23/27 on https://patient.info/doctor/patient-health-questionnaire-phq-9 today.

Even non-violent conflicts can be problematic. Violence is not the only way to cause harm. How can we prevent all harm?

What about religious terrorists who kill people who don't share their beliefs? I agree that we do go to war over all the things you mentioned. I tried for many years to convert pre-vegans to veganism but I failed. Most people are selfish and don't care about the suffering and deaths they cause to sentient organisms. That's why 99.6% of humans currently alive are not vegan. I can't even blame the pre-vegans due to hard determinism. If I had the genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences of the pre-vagans I would remain a pre-vegan, too. Aren't you upset about all the suffering, inequality, injustice, and death in the world?

What about religious terrorists who kill people who don't share their beliefs? — Truth Seeker

They're fighting over their stories. (God likes us and doesn't approve of them)

Aren't you upset about all the suffering, inequality, injustice, and death in the world? — Truth Seeker

I was, most of my life. Our daughter married a 'conservative' who had written a pro-worker dissertation for his Sociology course. We asked him "Don't you care about equality?" He said "I've moved on."
Well, so have I. I came to realize that this entire species is subject to some degree of the same emotional illness. We have this big brain, with its ability to reason and its ability to imagine, and we get the two mixed up all the time. We have aggressive predator genes and co-operative social genes, and we get the two mixed up all the time. We make up stories and fall in love with them so deeply that we die and kill for them. We exaggerate our fears into unspeakable monsters and then hang monster-masks on our fellow humans. We invent the notion of evil and then enact it and then make a ceremony of it.

I believe it's possible to live differently, but it would have to be in much smaller numbers, who were in accord, and it would require constant mindfulness and vigilance to maintain.

How do we decide what is fact and what is opinion? — Truth Seeker

An opinion is a belief, and let's only consider propositional beliefs. A fact is a true proposition. So your question boils down to: how do we decide what beliefs are true? Here's how: by applying valid epistemological methods, we improve our odds of holding true beliefs. That's as good as it gets.

Rather, opinions are propositions that are not truth-functional.

Rather, opinions are propositions that are not truth-functional. — Lionino

Please clarify what you mean. Are opinions not beliefs?

I sometimes think humans are addicted to crisis. — Tom Storm

I think we have a need to strive. To struggle. Nothing worthwhile comes easy. We don't appreciate what we don't work for.

The problem is, it seems the easiest way to struggle is against each other. It can be competition, which is why sports is the most important thing in the world. Unfortunately, it can also mean fighting, and taking from, each other.

I think we need to find more ways to strive for, and gain satisfaction from, things that don't involve other people. Me against nature. Me against myself. Who knows?

I see. I despair.

Thank you. I agree.

I disagree. I do appreciate things I don't work for. I appreciate oxygen, sunlight and gravity even though I don't work for any of these things that are vital to our existence.

I wasn't speaking in absolutes. no, every instant of our lives does not need to be a struggle. But I did not coin that phrase. The struggle very often makes things worthwhile. People are very often romantically drawn to the person who isn't interested. The one you want most is the one you can't have. The one you have to put in a lot of effort to get. I didn't come up with that idea either. Even as spectators, we don't get any enjoyment watching a baseball team win by 20 runs. How do we say it's bad sportsmanship when a team in that position keeps putting everything into it to increase their lead. Ali and Fraser fought some great matches because they were evenly matched.

I despair. — Truth Seeker

You'll move on from that, too. You know the stages of mourning? It's like that: eventually, you reach acceptance, make peace with the way of things, and just do what good you can in your small sphere of influence.

I see your point. Games are certainly more enjoyable to watch if it's a close call. It keeps us on edge, trying to guess who will win.

You'll move on from that, too. You know the stages of mourning? It's like that: eventually, you reach acceptance, make peace with the way of things, and just do what good you can in your small sphere of influence. — Vera Mont

I hope you are right. I have been stuck in depression for a long time. I am not going to go into all the gory details of the last 42 years as I don't want to traumatise others.

Patterner I see your point. Games are certainly more enjoyable to watch if it's a close call. It keeps us on edge, trying to guess who will win. — Truth Seeker

What about things other than games? Have you ever learned something that was difficult? That took a lot of time and effort? And, when you finally got it, felt great satisfaction and happiness? Do you feel that way with things that come easy to you? I would say the joy comes from the accomplishment at least as much as from possessing a new piece of knowledge.

Yes, English is my second language. It took a lot of time and effort for me to learn it. I certainly found it satisfying. I agree that things that come easily to me are not as satisfying.

Lots of things are outside our control. I tried to be stoical about it but I failed. Perhaps I failed because I am currently depressed. I scored 23/27 on https://patient.info/doctor/patient-health-questionnaire-phq-9 today. — Truth Seeker

I can't speak to your situation, but sometimes when people are seeking to change the world, what they would be better off doing is changing themselves.

I have changed a lot over the years as a result of my experiences and change hasn't stopped. I am always learning and growing. It's part of being human.

I think we have a need to strive. To struggle. Nothing worthwhile comes easy. We don't appreciate what we don't work for. — Patterner

That's certainly a commonly held view. But frankly I appreciate greatly the things I got for 'free' or without work, so I'm not sure about this. It sounds a little too close to Calvinism for me.

which is why sports is the most important thing in the world. Unfortunately, it can also mean fighting, and taking from, each other. — Patterner

This doesn't resonate with me at all. I have never watched or played any sport. I dislike games and sport with something approaching a passion. I do agree with the point that many men are aggressive creatures and as long as they are running around on the field like thugs chasing after a ball, they are not out on the streets rioting. That's a cartoon summary with perhaps some truth to it?

I think we need to find more ways to strive for, and gain satisfaction from, things that don't involve other people. Me against nature. Me against myself. Who knows? — Patterner

I think this is the impulse i lack. I have never had any desire to challenge myself or do any of the kinds of 'growth-based" righteous middle class rituals you read about in self-help. That doesn't mean I haven't had to face challenges and overcome obstacles, but this happens without planning.

How can we prevent all harm? — Truth Seeker

We cannot** since only the dead are free from "all harm" or conflict; however, far more often than not, we can prevent greater harms from occuring and/or reduce harms that have been inflicted. Lack of perfection** is neither a rational nor a moral argument against doing good (i.e. negating worse) whenever possible. Nonviolent conflicts are usually resolved less harmfully than violent conflicts which almost always follow from either refusing to engage in and/or defecting from nonviolent conflict (e.g. dialectics, deliberations, dialogues). So again I ask, Seeker:

Absent this Sisyphusean agon (i.e. 'the unexamined life is not worth living'), how else can we – at least some small yet nontrivial fraction of the eight billion of us – thrive (flourish)? — 180 Proof

:chin:

I hope you are right. — Truth Seeker

I hope so, too. You have to move on. You can't let yourself be stuck in regret over something you can't fix. You have to accept your own limitations - and what's much harder, mankind's. You have to concentrate on the small good things: the number of people who have changed the way eat, the way they use resources, the way they think; the people who dedicate their lives to making things better. As a species, we may be self-destructive, but individually, we are not a complete loss - many of us are worth cherishing, respecting, supporting, helping. Do what you can do and don't deny yourself the pleasure of small victories, just because the big ones are beyond your reach.

, I guess we do away with errors, delineate propositions, build on what has worked, assess evidence + reason, ...
Epistemic standards is a comprehensive area, yet even common sense is fine on occasion.
Claims come in all "shapes and sizes", justification likewise.
(In analogy, I wouldn't ask a blacksmith to do heart surgery, or a surgeon to craft a Claymore.)
For an existential claim, I'd just start out simple ...

• if you're referring to something extra-self, then show us something
  ^{(existentially mind-independent, objective, applicable to us all)}
• if you're referring to something you have on your mind, then tell us about it
  ^{(often enough existentially mind-dependent, subjective)}
• if extra-self, then explain your interaction therewith
  ^{(that others may differentiate you and the claimed)}

Or something like that.