User:Blue Hoopy Frood/Essays/Opinion vs. POV

Official Wikipedia policy conflates the terms opinion and non-consensus point-of-view (POV). In my opinion, this is a mistake.

"Genocide is evil" is an opinion. "Orange juice is delicious" is an opinion. You may hold a different opinion without challenging my worldview, or even offending my sensibilities (less so with the genocide example, suggesting there may be different classes of opinion).

"The earth is flat" is not an opinion. It is a statement of fact, once terms are adequately defined. It is either true or false. I happen to believe it is false. Is that an opinion? Perhaps, but the proposition itself is not. Unlike the nature of orange juice, it cannot be true for one person and false for another.

"The universe exists in 10 spacetime dimensions" and "The universe exists in 11 spacetime dimensions" are both statements of fact, not opinions. At least one of them is false. By (my) definition, I cannot be of the opinion that the universe exists in 10 spacetime dimensions. I could hold that POV, however. My POV may change tomorrow. I may hold no POV on the subject at all (which I don't, actually). The truth values of the underlying factual propositions change not a whit based on my POV.

I hope you get the idea.

Many propositions are technically statements of fact (not opinion), but defy scientific analysis, either by their very nature, because it would be impossible to find relevant data; or because we lack sufficient data to test any practical hypothesis. Some of these may be trivial, but others may be of crucial importance. We typically refer to such propositions as statements of faith.

Some examples:
 * The human spirit [lives on | does not live on] after the death of the body.
 * There [is | is not] intelligent life on other planets.
 * There [is | is not] an intelligent being who created the universe.

When we think someone is trying to skew or manufacture scientific evidence to support such a claim, we rather pejoratively refer to it as pseudoscience. If we have integrity, we try to do so even-handedly, whether the assertion is, "God created the universe," or, "The Big Bang created the universe [and hence explains away God]."

I might argue that X is pseudoscience is an opinion; or, at any rate, not an incontrovertible fact. You may have a different POV. Regardless, in applying the term, we should be careful to avoid hubris. What is now considered pseudoscience may one day be mainstream science (and vice-versa). For example, claims that the earth has been visited by aliens would currently fall in the realm of pseudoscience (or science fiction). Were we to discover conclusive evidence that the construction of the pyramids in fact predates the earliest humans, that position might need to be reevaluated.

How important is it to distinguish an opinion from a POV on a factual statement? Not really, so long as we are all using the same definition. The risk is that, by calling a position on a factual statement an opinion, we imply that it can be true for one person and false for another; which is generally not the case regarding topics of Wikipedia articles.