I cannot take seriously the scale by which someone determines what is fact and what is opinion when my assertion of my area of residence is taken as subjective and an opinion. Nor is inference the distinguishing mark of opinion, since a valid inference from compelling evidence may very well result in a determination of fact. To me, the difference between fact and opinion is this: would a reasonable person be capable of advancing a different hypothesis? Not, be it noted, is a different hypothesis possible, but is it reasonable? The jury is spoken of as making determinations of fact, according to the criterion "beyond a reasonable doubt". On the same basis, if I consider something beyond a reasonable doubt, then I advance it as a fact.
Now, it is possible to advance something as a matter of fact and turn out to be wrong, because it is not absolutely impossible that something different should turn out to be true, or that the information was poorly conveyed. Some residual fallibility is not, however, a sufficient cause to portray everything as a matter of opinion, since opinion implies a fairly high degree of unsettledness or doubtfulness........ |
