C2 Chris Bell
Chris Bell
2026-07-13 · 5 min ·
cite 
@misc{bell2026a,
  author       = {Bell, Chris},
  title        = {{A bit on Opinions}},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://cbell.dev/writing/a-bit-on-opinions/}},
  url          = {https://cbell.dev/writing/a-bit-on-opinions/},
  note         = {ORCID: 0009-0006-3476-8618}
}
ORCID 0009-0006-3476-8618
· thoughts working-draft

A bit on Opinions

This is an unrefined and evolving thought of mine. I find it easier clean up my thoughts through writing, and why not pad out the content of my site with these thoughts?

Recently, I had a conversation in which the statement "The sky is blue" was explicitly treated as an opinion. On its face, it seems like this is a statement of fact. In fact, and I don't believe this was the intent, the claim itself seemed to suggest that there was no distinction between fact and opinion.

Naturally, this inspired me to think about the difference between fact and opinion. Having a shared description of the difference between the two is a load-bearing structure in any dialogue between two good-faith participants.

And this difference is apparently quite hard to pin down! My intuitive understanding was that this delineation was parallel to the line between objective and subjective. In "The Fact/Opinion Distinction" by Prof. John Corvino 11See this article to read his words in full. He describes this in much more detail and his path towards trying to make this distinction., he gives a definition he had found that would have largely matched what I think:1See this article to read his words in full. He describes this in much more detail and his path towards trying to make this distinction.

"Fact: statement of actuality or occurrence. A fact is based on direct evidence, actual experience, or observation.

Opinion: statement of belief or feeling. It shows one’s feelings about a subject. Solid opinions, while based on facts, are someone’s views on a subject and not facts themselves."

I say "largely" because my interpretations of the word fact and factual are distinct; the truth value has less to do with a statement being factual. Along this line of thinking, saying "That is a fact" semantically expands to "That is a factual statement that is also true."

My more STEM-holed brain22The result of years of science oriented schooling without much in the way of liberal arts, but I'm trying! would've been quite happy with the second definition33Along with a bulk of the examples he used in his article, I recommend reading it! Corvino found:2The result of years of science oriented schooling without much in the way of liberal arts, but I'm trying!3Along with a bulk of the examples he used in his article, I recommend reading it!

A fact is a statement that can be proven true.

An opinion expresses someone’s belief, feeling, view, idea, or judgment about something or someone.

Tying 'factuality' to 'falsifiability'44I say falsifiability and not provability because I treat these two as quite distinct things. Science is a deductive endeavor (à la Popper's falsificationism), the essence of scientific knowledge relies on falsifiable statements that were not falsified after attempts to falsify them. Proving is (often) a positive claim: show that something must be true given some conditions. For those who've not studied the proof side of math (or for math people who have not studied science), this difference is the epistemic difference between the knowledge we get from the two fields. scratched an itch that I didn't realize I needed. This definition supports my rejection of "The sky is blue" as being a statement of opinion. However, falsifiability is not a specific enough filter. Consider the statement "It will rain tomorrow." This is definitely falsifiable tomorrow, but today I would treat it as an opinion.4I say falsifiability and not provability because I treat these two as quite distinct things. Science is a deductive endeavor (à la Popper's falsificationism), the essence of scientific knowledge relies on falsifiable statements that were not falsified after attempts to falsify them. Proving is (often) a positive claim: show that something must be true given some conditions. For those who've not studied the proof side of math (or for math people who have not studied science), this difference is the epistemic difference between the knowledge we get from the two fields.

In addition, 'falsifiability' is also an insensitive filter: consider the statement "God exists." Many people consider this to be a statement of fact, not one of opinion. I also would treat it as a factual statement which happens to be unfalsifiable55If the god you mention is the usual-near-me blend of protestant omnipresent omniscience.. Similarly, I feel that the statement "Genocide is evil" is not one of opinion, but one of fact. So, it is clear to me that the colloquial use of the terms fact and opinion are not easy to align with a strict definition, and their use can be, and has been, confused.5If the god you mention is the usual-near-me blend of protestant omnipresent omniscience.

I do not believe, however, that this distinction is something to then drop in a nihilistic fit. By stating something is an opinion in a conversation, the opinion becomes something that cannot66Or will not be allowed by the holder to be contested. I partially agree with this opinion holder in the broadest sense; it is hard to disagree with someone's opinion.6Or will not be allowed by the holder to

As Corvino points out, to state that something "is your opinion" can be a way of hedging your position and indicating to another that you're holding a subjective view based on what you have without further evidence. I am fine with this in the instance that the person I'm talking to is willing to change their opinion if there is good reason to do so. If there is nothing that will change their opinion, and their opinion is effectively a rhetorical guardrail of a key point in the conversation, I begin to feel that the person I'm talking to has no interest in the topic at hand.

Corvino had preceded the above with the more malicious use: as a terminating claim that belittles another's statement. By "reducing it to a mere matter of taste," a person makes the claim seem pointless and ineffectual. Arguing someone's taste is a low stakes argument that I'd only have as banter with close friends or as an insult about enemies. It is not something I'd engage in for a serious conversation, and, to me, reducing the topic in such way dismisses the importance implied by the person actually deciding to make the claim in the first place.

The common thread uniting these cases is how these labels function in conversation. A fact is something both parties would agree and use as knowledge to move forward from. In this context, a fact is largely inert once agreed to by both parties. An opinion, however, is something to argue about, something to agree to disagree on, or something which motivates the facts brought up. The opinion itself is not used as a fact77In all instances. It could be used as a fact in a hypothetical or upon explicit statement, i.e., we can treat an opinion as factual but never implicitly do so..7In all instances. It could be used as a fact in a hypothetical or upon explicit statement, i.e., we can treat an opinion as factual but never implicitly do so.

When a person elevates their opinion to a fact, they are effectively stating that this is something the other party must agree to if the conversation will continue. Thus, both parties agreeing on what a fact is is important in and of itself.

Corvino's proposed definitions seem to help out quite a bit:

  • A statement of fact is one that has objective content and is well-supported by the available evidence.

  • A statement of opinion is one whose content is either subjective or else not well supported by the available evidence.

As I interpret his proposed definition, a statement of fact would not necessarily be entirely objective in nature, which prevents statements like "Genocide is evil" from being a problem.88Which is only a problem if you are a moral subjectivist. Moral objectivists might see this as a purely objective claim. The "supported by the available evidence" also deals with the temporal clarification I wanted in the "It will rain tomorrow." Tomorrow is never here, and the available evidence would, under a strict reading, seem to collapse a future claim into an opinion.8Which is only a problem if you are a moral subjectivist. Moral objectivists might see this as a purely objective claim.

In toto, the statement "The Sky is blue" is a fact under this definition, which, I guess, is what I wanted to be able to claim.