I always argue about the logic of fact and opinion, for years already. This is an issue that immediately it clicks for me, that yes, this is something people have to know. Fact and opinion, the basic concepts for reasoning, for sure this should be a basic schoolsubject.
And actually it is already a school subject. Facts are proven, and opinion is what you feel, or some variation of that, is taught at a young age. And then later on it is taught in regards to spotting misinformation and bias in the news. As far as I know, fact and opinion is the only philosophy subject that is taught to every student in school. For the rest of it any philosophy subject taught is elective, and not for all students.
In my opinion the full logic of fact and opinion should be taught, at about age 12 or something. So then kids can start their more serious learning with learning the logic of fact and opinion, which will make learning all the other stuff easier, more efficient. For any science stuff, it makes it easier when you know the logic in a statement of fact, and for all the humanities like history or civics, it makes it easier when you know the logic in a statement of opinion. So the students become emancipated to obtain facts independently, and express opinions independently, by knowing how it works. Which would be great for the students, and would also have huge societal benefits.
Creationism explains the logic of fact and opinion. Of course because I’ve been on this issue for years already, I have doublechecked it, and I have no doubt about it. In all the years I have been talking about this issue to people, I have never even been offered any competing conceptual scheme of fact and opinion besides creationism. The problem is always over the concept of opinion, not over the concept of fact. The counter argument to creationism is always either mindless repetition of a definition of subjectivity from an arbitrary dictionary, without any critical understanding whatsoever, or, the argument that subjectivity is some kind of mystery that we haven’t solved yet.
Everyone is completely emotional to talk about the logic of opinion. Which is because, as I have gathered from years of experience, people totally hate the idea that choosing is spontaneous. The idea that a decision can turn out one way or another in the moment that the decision is made. Which idea is required for the concept of subjectivity to function. People are emotionally invested in the idea of choosing to mean a process of selecting the best option. You can see in dictionaries (like google/oxford) that choosing is commonly defined in respect to what is best. Which is because of psychological pressure to do your best, and because the feeling of doing your best is a nice feeling.
In one aspect a philosopher’s job is to just facillitate what people like. Because philosophy is the love of wisdom, so if people love for choosing to be defined in terms of selection of what is best, then a philosopher can accommdate that request with terminology, and definitions of words, to facillitate it. However efficient logic of fact and opinion is what people should learn to appreciate instead. Because very obviously, all the subjective pursuits like religion, politics, relationships, mental health, are going to suffer badly without a functional concept of subjectivity at the intellectual level. Then people can only wing it with their innate intuitive understanding of how subjectivity works, and the results of that will not be good.
So fact and opinion is the only philosophy subject taught in school, is academic philosophy doing a good job of supporting that teaching?
Obviously because subjectivity is dependent on the idea of choosing, then we get into the free will mess that academic philosophy has been in for hundreds or thousands of years already. So philosophy in general can only offer a mess on the issue of opinion, which would not be suitable for a school subject. On the other hand the students get to learn lots in school about obtaining facts with science, although curiously, still not the basic logic of fact.
What philosophy is doing in school instead of teaching logic of fact and opinion, is trying to push woke nonsense. This woke nonsense is broadly based on the idea of choosing in terms of selection of what is best. The woke nonsense is about generating feelings of doing your best, for the adherents of the ideology. The selectionists need these feelings of doing their best, in order to compensate for their morbid emotions, which morbidity is caused by not having a functional concept of subjectivity to be able to deal with their emotions.
I see the free will debate in a stark good versus evil contrast. The good people who conceive of choosing in terms of spontaneity, and the evil socialst woke nazi communists who conceive of choosing in terms of selection of what is best. The people who have a functional concept of subjectivity, and the people who do not have a functional concept of subjectivity. I get the daily reminders in the news of this total evil.
Of course it should be understood that it is not wrong to do your best, it is only wrong to define choosing in terms of selection of the best option.
It is not the case that theists generally favor creationism. As the corruption of the idea of choosing is occasioned by the psychological pressure to do your best, there is plenty of pressure to do your best in regards to God. So while broadly religion may still promote subjectivity, as in faith, it also carries within it a strong motive for corruption of the idea of choosing, and thereby corruption of the idea of subjectivity. Creationists typically also support intelligent design, which is a sophisticated way of decision-making, which also involves selection procedures. But this can also undermine the idea of choosing as being spontaneous. And when I challenge theists about this, then it is a similar reponse as what atheists give, which is mindless repetition of dictionary definitions, and asserting subjectivity is a mystery. But the main difference between an atheist response and a theist response is when challenged, a theist is much more likely to just go silent, and not say anything anymore.
The full logic of fact and opinion is a ridiculous nothing that has about the complexity of the rules for the game tic-tac-toe. The difficulty of creationism is solely psychological of wanting to accept the fact that decisions are spontaneous.
Creationism: What is subjective creates what is objective, by decision
- Creator / chooses / spiritual / subjective / opinion
- Creation / chosen / material / objective / fact
subjective = identified with a chosen opinion
objective = identified with a model of it
Example of opinion; to say someone is a loving person. The opinion is chosen, and the opinion identifies who this person is as being a decision-maker.
Example of fact; to say there is a glass on the table. The statement of fact is valid if the model of the glass on the table, matches with what is being modelled.
So then choosing is the mechanism for how a creation comes to be. Everything that is in the universe is possible, it can be or not be, by decision. And the decision-maker for each decision is identified with a chosen opinion.
You should be able to see that if creationism is true, then the reputation of academic philosophy, evolutionary biology and academics in general, would come crashing down hard. So as that the whole idea of academic people having any kind of reputation for the truth becomes to be a joke. But that is just comedy, and I believe it would be of no significant consequence for academics.