a factual opinion

  I hear a lot about the facts. Citations are provided to prove the facts. Well I say this, "facts are merely the opinions we all agree upon." When the opinion changes, so too, the facts. And that is how it works in the world. All the scholars over the ages have pontificated about all of that. Much has been written about perception as fact. I subscribe to that theory, seeing is indeed believing. It is when we see a bit more that our perception may change, and so too, our factual account of that. Ironically all that is also just an opinion, my opinion, that may or may not agree with your facts. Is it a good thing? All life is subjective in nature, and all opinions are a bit different. When we agree, we adopt that as a fact. Take something as simple as an inch. An inch is an inch right? Well not in countries using the metric system they aren't, that distance is 2.54 centimeters. Same distance, different fact. Water is wet, it's a fact everyone agrees. Still who decided that fact? What if that person had decided water was dry and the land was wet? We would adopt that as a fact, that's what. 

 A famous writer, Gustave Flaubert, once said, " There is no truth, only perception." I googled that. I hadn't heard it before. It was further proof to me that there is little anyone can say that hasn't been said before. I often use the free plagiarism checker available online in an attempt to not be accused of doing that; plagiarism. Whatever I write is solely my opinion of the world, and the facts contained within it. I make no claim to being a scholar of any sort, as I do not accept everything taught as a fact. The only fact is as Mr. Flaubert said, my perception. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." (Margaret Wolf Hungerford) I read where Plato is also credited with that. That is a fact, as both said it. "Beauty is bought by the judgement of the eye." (Shakespeare) There again is another fact. Did Margaret and Will plagiarize Plato? What's the fact of the matter? I suppose only a court of law could decide the facts in that case. If it were the Supreme court they would issue an opinion. The congress would have to agree with that opinion before it could become enforceable under the law. "All laws are transient facts." (A.B.Reichart)  When the opinion changes, so too, the fact. It's a fact that pot remains on the list as a schedule one drug. Should it be? Well, that's a matter of opinion now isn't it. The DEA still holds the opinion that it should. 

 The biggest issue I see today is people confusing opinion with fact. They are not the same thing. Even when you can provide a citation for your opinion that doesn't make it a fact. All that does is show how many people share your opinion. The majority rules, but that doesn't always indicate they are right! Granted it is the best we can do as human beings. There is so much we just don't know that we have to agree upon some opinions regarding the natural world. We have to create our own facts in order to live in civilized societies. There has been many instances of the "next best thing" turning out to not be so great after all. When that happens we call it progress to excuse our own ignorance. Then we adopt a new set of facts. It is all a matter of opinion. 

                                                                                       

"Search enough and you will find someone that agrees with your opinion"