Opinion vs fact

deirdre

Senior Member.
Thought members might appreciate a refresher. so found a fun pew quiz.

please put any spoiler comments in spoiler tags, so as not to mess up the quiz for others.
https://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/news-statements-quiz/

i got one wrong.
Government is almost always wasteful and inefficient.
I'm not sure how i got that one wrong though. I think pew's opinion that is not a fact is wrong. :)
 
Last edited:
2 wrong, but I disagree with them for reasons I'll go into after I either learn to use spoiler tags or more people have had a chance to play...
 
Got one wrong.

The Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid making up the largest portion of federal spending one. Thought it was an opinion.

The quiz could have been longer and cover a broader variety of issues. The ten questions only perked me up and made me want to continue.
 
5/5 and 5/5.

I could push one of the facts close to opinion if I did a little bit of sophistry, but decided that they weren't looking for cynical answers, just the simple first approximation.

Spoiler: Urnygupner pbfgf ner irel uneq gb pbzcner npebff qvssrerag angvbaf, fb vg'f abg nf zrnfhenoyr naq irevsvnoyr nf lbh'q yvxr vg gb or.

(Yes, that's a metoo on the spoiler tags)
 
[spoiler="teaser"]body of spoiler[/spoiler]
should be rendered like this (which does require JS to be enabled in the client):
body of spoiler
 
Got all right, Though one was a guess
Isis losing most of their territory in 2017, Yes I knew they lost nearly everything (gained some in africa though) but I wasnt sure about 2017, if they said 2016 or 2018 I was of answered the same
 
Thought members might appreciate a refresher. so found a fun pew quiz.

please put any spoiler comments in spoiler tags, so as not to mess up the quiz for others.
https://www.pewresearch.org/quiz/news-statements-quiz/

i got one wrong.
Government is almost always wasteful and inefficient.
I'm not sure how i got that one wrong though. I think pew's opinion that is not a fact is wrong. :)
I got 5 out of 5 on each.

Maybe some ambiguity on factual as a claim of fact vs factual as a true statement of fact?
 
the easy way to tag a spoiler:Screenshot_20220913-151455_Samsung Internet.jpg


Maybe some ambiguity on factual as a claim of fact vs factual as a true statement of fact?
the common fallacy is probably to consider an opinion you agree with strongly to be a statement of fact

(I'm 5/5, no ambiguity at all)
 
Got all right, Though one was a guess
Isis losing most of their territory in 2017, Yes I knew they lost nearly everything (gained some in africa though) but I wasnt sure about 2017, if they said 2016 or 2018 I was of answered the same
would still be a factual statement even if it was incorrect

that's actually one of the ways to tell factual statements: if they could be easily disproven with evidence, they're factual
 
5/5 and 5/5.

I could push one of the facts close to opinion if I did a little bit of sophistry, but decided that they weren't looking for cynical answers, just the simple first approximation.

Healthcare costs are very hard to compare across different nations, so it's not as measurable and verifiable as you'd like it to be.

(Yes, that's a metoo on the spoiler tags)
Well, whether some method is a valid way to compare this, that is a matter of opinion; but once an accepted method is used, the statement becomes factual (or if the implied "using method X" is explicitly stated)
 
i'd like to see 5 examples of evidence of the one i got wrong lol.
well you won't, because that's an opinion and not a fact
it's stated in such fuzzy terms that you couldn't cite evidence without getting into an argument about whether it applies
 
i'd like to see 5 examples of evidence of the one i got wrong lol.
Here's one, for starters.


Medicare Has Controlled Costs Better Than Private Insurance

  • According to CMS, for common benefits, Medicare spending rose by an average of 4.3 percent each year between 1997 and 2009, while private insurance premiums grew at a rate of 6.5 percent per year. (See Table 13)
  • According to a calculation by the National Academy for Social Insurance, if spending on Medicare rose at the same rate as private insurance premiums during that period, Medicare would have cost an additional $114 billion (or 31.7 percent).
Content from External Source
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20110920.013390/
 
Here's one, for starters.


Medicare Has Controlled Costs Better Than Private Insurance

  • According to CMS, for common benefits, Medicare spending rose by an average of 4.3 percent each year between 1997 and 2009, while private insurance premiums grew at a rate of 6.5 percent per year. (See Table 13)
  • According to a calculation by the National Academy for Social Insurance, if spending on Medicare rose at the same rate as private insurance premiums during that period, Medicare would have cost an additional $114 billion (or 31.7 percent).
Content from External Source
https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/forefront.20110920.013390/
ah. so one is not wasteful and inefficient, if another is MORE wasteful and inefficient. gotcha.
 
ah. so one is not wasteful and inefficient, if another is MORE wasteful and inefficient. gotcha.
it's hard to uphold the claim that an expenditure is "wasteful" when the alternatives cost more

that you can do so anyway proves that "wasteful" is an opinion word here, not a fact
 
it's hard to uphold the claim that an expenditure is "wasteful" when the alternatives cost more
i guess they should have added the word "Comparatively". I disagree, but it will help me pass the tests in the future to know this is how the thinking process goes.
 
Missed one fact as opinion. Almost went back to change it. Oh well, live and learn.

It seems the key is that, while there is no evidence presented in the statements, one has to think if evidence could be presented to confirm or falsify the statement. Granted, people will present evidence to back up their opinions too, but opinions are not necessarily falsifiable the way a statement of fact is. I got the first one about health care spending wrong, thinking it wasn't backed up. But of course, it could have been.
 
ah. so one is not wasteful and inefficient, if another is MORE wasteful and inefficient. gotcha.
Which matters more to you, the number of programs or the dollars spent on them? I'd think the latter.
Then there's the "fact" that some things like military or intelligence expenditures may be "wasteful" In the opinion of some. If that is so, it's on the whole good news, because that means we are not yet in an all-out war, the costs of which would outstrip all other budget items. I pay taxes so my local firemen can, for all I know, sit around drinking coffee and playing cards most of the time. But I'd prefer them to do that than for me to live in a town without a fire department.
 
Last edited:
i guess they should have added the word "Comparatively". I disagree, but it will help me pass the tests in the future to know this is how the thinking process goes.
you're still not getting what to look for

this is not about right and wrong
 
you're still not getting what to look for
yes i am.
would still be a factual statement even if it was incorrect

that's actually one of the ways to tell factual statements: if they could be easily disproven with evidence, they're factual



I pay taxes so my local firemen can, for all I know, sit around drinking coffee and playing cards most of the time. But I'd prefer them to do that than for me to live in a town without a fire department
that's not how i read the word "wasteful" in the question.
 
About this survey:


Source: https://medium.com/trust-media-and-democracy/fact-or-opinion-new-research-finds-who-best-tells-the-difference-a2d1cd5aa7fc

Overall, Republicans and Democrats were more likely to classify both factual and opinion statements as factual when they appealed most to their side.
Content from External Source
Interestingly, which news outlet produced the statement had no impact — with one notable exception. Republicans were slightly more likely than Democrats to accurately classify three factual statements when they were attributed to Fox News, and Democrats were slightly less likely than Republicans to do so. When no source was attributed — or when USA Today or The New York Times was the source — there was no difference in the results.
Content from External Source
 
It's really dubious to try to apply a factual label to a qualitative statement like "wasteful" or "inefficient."

If you value tax dollars highly, then you might perceive them being used on something that you do not value as wasteful. Or if you are like me, and you consider human time to be highly valuable, private industry is often extremely wasteful - using entire generations of workers minds to answer emails or flip burgers.

There is no way to attach an inherent quality to either. You could design a government with minimal waste or a business with minimal waste.
The fact that I consider private industry more wasteful on the whole is entirely my opinion. I would argue for it *with* facts, but those facts are informing a philosophy, not the other way around.
 
If you value tax dollars highly, then you might perceive them being used on something that you do not value as wasteful
i personally dont think the question related to what the money was used on. i read the question as assuming the programs were good programs but the running of them was wasteful and inefficient.
 
If you need to interpret the words in a statement, that makes it an opinion.
that's not strictly true

if I make a statement like "the index of refraction in a standard atmosphere is 1.3", then you need to interpret "standard atmosphere" to know what I mean

that's just how language works

now, if your interpretation of key words depends on your opinion....
 
i personally dont think the question related to what the money was used on. i read the question as assuming the programs were good programs but the running of them was wasteful and inefficient.
The overall statement in the questionnaire was poorly worded, then. If you want to discuss the veracity of it (since you considered it to be "true") with regard to specific programs, I fear you'll need to be specific about which particular ones you consider to be good-but-wasteful.
 
that's not strictly true

if I make a statement like "the index of refraction in a standard atmosphere is 1.3", then you need to interpret "standard atmosphere" to know what I mean

that's just how language works

now, if your interpretation of key words depends on your opinion....
A standard atmosphere is a defined thing - fact - and your example merely shows "a thing the reader may not know" rather than "a thing that needs to be interpreted". You're probably right, but your example isn't well chosen - opinion.
:)
 
i personally dont think the question related to what the money was used on. i read the question as assuming the programs were good programs but the running of them was wasteful and inefficient.

What would you cite as evidence that "government is almost always wasteful and inefficient?" How would you provide factual basis for "almost always?" What precise percentage is that?

What resources are being utilized inefficiently if not money? Is people's time being used poorly? Wouldn't you just quantify that in fiscal terms anyway?

Further, when is something wasted? This article for example takes it as fact that waste can be measured by the amount of a program budget that goes to administering the program: https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/01/chart-day-federal-programs-surprisingly-well-run/

Here’s a chart from the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities showing just how much overhead the feds add to a variety of programs:



There’s no real way to compare this to the private sector, because the private sector just doesn’t run programs like this. The closest you could come is to compare this level of overhead to average SG&A costs — which is at least something Romney would understand — and on that score the federal government looks great and state governments don’t look too bad either. Most companies would be pretty happy with SG&A expenses of 5-10%.

As the author notes, there's no real way to compare this to the private sector. No matter how you define waste, I think you're going to end up with something that is an opinion. Unless you have a magic version of reality where inefficiency can reach zero, you need to be able to compare inefficiencies to come away with any useful information.

Based on that, in your opinion, the statements "Government is almost always inefficient" and "Private industry is almost always inefficient" could both be considered factual with the justification: "all systems have inherent inefficiency."

Which is (in my opinion) not falsifiable.
 
Last edited:
So am I to assume that even if you demand concrete examples, you are unwilling or unable to give them?
pretty much all of them, means your chances of naming one that isnt on the list is slim.
note: the question said "almost always".

medicaid, medicare, social security (the fraudulent disability cases..not the ss income old people paid in), the small business help handed out (or not handed out) during Covid, schools, state run programs for people/children with disabilities, the motor vehicle department, the police departments (probably not all but most),
i imagine big city firedepartments have waste and inefficiency in them*... i dont know, it would be easier for you to name one that is not inefficient or wasteful.

*firemen on call is not waste. they have to be at the station for when the calls come in.
 
there's no real way to compare this to the private sector.
i dont understand why everyone is comparing the question to the private sector.

but that's fine. obviously my interpretation of the question was wrong as i got an "x" on the quiz answer sheet.
 
Back
Top