All too often, facts and opinions are deemed to be the same thing even though they are entirely different.
Facts generally have several characteristics including being measured and verifiable, backed by evidence or documentation, being observable or proven. In contrast, opinion represents an individual or collective belief or argument; it is an outlook or viewpoint that may or may not be based on fact.
In the first case, facts are based significantly on widespread consensus established through recognised expertise. On the other hand, opinion is shaped by personal feelings, attitudes, experiences, understandings, values, etc, which cannot be verified in the same way.
Facts are primarily objective whereas opinions are primarily subjective.
Both are important and necessary in life but they are not the same. In the digital age especially, one of unmediated social media, manipulated reporting and advertising, highly-opinionated talk radio and TV and increasing official disinformation, facts and opinions are often erroneously portrayed as the same and of equal value.
This has led to well-founded concerns about what is labelled truth decay and its consequences for private and public life.
Few of us would want the pilot flying our plane or the electrician wiring our house or the doctor operating on us to base their actions on personal opinion alone; we need to trust that they are guided by established evidence and expertise. We would probably all agree that it would be foolish, even dangerous to purchase a car without first checking it out.
Yet, many of us do not practise this elementary approach when it comes to more important decisions such as personal and public health. The importance of understanding the difference between fact and opinion revolves around the reliability and utility of information. They are crucial in drawing conclusions and framing actions.
The deliberate conflating of fact and opinion has very real inherent dangers as is clearly demonstrated in the context of COVID-19. Public health decisions need to be based around the best available international scientific evidence at the time and not simply opinion or assumption, no matter how passionately held.
Public health guidance on social distancing, mask-wearing and handwashing represents the majority of medical and epidemiological expertise. The minority views have failed to gain widespread credibility or cumulative supportive evidence to date. Public health policy must reflect this reality, contrary beliefs notwithstanding.
A related danger arises from the fact that most of us engage in motivated reasoning – the mental habit of working backward from what we already believe when judging the credibility of an argument or piece of evidence.
This is particularly true in situations of highly-polarised societies or debates as is evident in the extremes of Brexit Britain or post-election US. It has also been evident in recent exchanges here in Malta on the topic of hunting and the alleged indoctrination of school students.
Understanding the context of these debates is crucial; assessing what agendas and interests are at play. It is not simply a matter of what is said or implied but equally what is not said.
Flawed or biased information or analysis becomes evident if such tests are applied and if we refrain from simply believing what we already believe.
In a world rife with conspiracy theories, disinformation and highly-politicised agendas, it is not only healthy but essential that each of us consciously improve our ability to recognise bias and its sources and shapes as well as its contexts.
Today, recognising the difference between fact and fiction, between assertion and actual evidence and between passive acceptance and considered reflection have become key life skills.