So again, if you mean "opinion" as in "belief" and "fact" meaning "true proposition" then certainly beliefs can also be true propositions. We also call that knowledge (if justified).

I thought an opinion was believed? Can one have an opinion they don't believe?

I thought a fact was a true proposition? Can a fact be a false proposition?

Opinions are not based on facts

There is no corresponding fact to test against the claim "strawberry is the best flavor of ice cream".

If a doctor gives an informed opinion that a patient has cancer, he or she is most likely basing this opinion on fact.



Not all opinions are bound by subjective evaluations with no correlation to "true" or "false" propositions. Many opinions do have correlation with "true" or "false" propositions.

"It is my opinion that the house is going to collapse". If I know that dozens of houses have collapsed in the past in the same condition, I am basing my opinion of fact. If the house happens to collapse, wouldn't you say my opinion was true? You could then follow by saying my opinion turned out to fact, no?

You're just repeating what's already been said, actually.

These are common expressions. Words have many different usages. Sometimes we say things like "get a second opinion" but we could also say "get a second belief about the state of your health" and mean the exact same thing. This doesn't contradict what I'm saying, however.

You say opinions cannot be based on facts.

I say opinions can be based on facts.

I'm clearly contradicting you.

You're using a different meaning of the word.

Logical Fallacy: Ambiguity

And since any argument against your misleading posts you regard to be "Ambiguity" (much appreciate the link), it appears we're done.

In the future, you can avoid that by defining your terms clearly like I have already done in this thread.

Oh, really? Which term did I not define clearly enough for you?

I think you know which term. You claimed that you were contradicting me when we were using two different definitions. Then you claimed I was being misleading even though I've already defined my terms but you just didn't bother to read the thread.

But it wasn't that I didn't define my term, I certainly did. And I understood how you defined your term. I simply was disagreeing with the definition you provided. I found it to be too stringent.

You can define "pig" as a mammal with 10 legs, and even though you defined your term, I can certainly disagree with you.

Perhaps a synthesis?
Perhaps the complete Universe ('Reality') is the sum-total of all Perspectives?
If one sees 10 legged pigs, their perception is a feature of the complete notion of a pig.
Every Conscious Perspective of the pig is correct, but incomplete; limitation being definitionally inherent in Perspective.
As the fellow said, "we are the sum total of everyone we have ever met!"
'Our' particular and unique Perspective is but one inherent feature of/in the complete Universe.

I doubt very much that Reality is the sum total of perspectives, since Reality existed way before there were people, and, therefore, perspectives.

Even more confusing would be to call reality of sum total of the words (or phrases, etc.) used to describe it.

You're giving an absurd example that doesn't reflect the reality of the situation. We've already established that there are words that can have more than one common meaning. There's no need to disagree about which is the "real" definition. That's ridiculous. The word "dark" can refer to both color and mood. Don't you agree?

I do agree, and I would acknowledge the different uses of "dark". I wouldn't say, "Dark can only be used in reference to color". I also wouldn't say, if you disagreed, that you committed a logical fallacy.

Opinions are not based on facts