Reply to comment

I know I may be backtracking a bit with this post, but I feel it is an essential point. 

I understand the confusion that arises when trying to define fact versus opinion outside of the science realm, however, within the study of science, I believe a fact is clearly defined as a PROVABLE hypothesis. If a researcher or scientist can prove his or her belief (with concrete evidence that can be replicated by others), it is a fact.  If not, it is not a fact and perhaps only an individual’s temporary opinion until new research is uncovered.  I recognize that this is an obvious addition to our conversation, however, I believe it is important to clarify in exactly what content we are discussing the definition of a “fact”.  A well-trained, professional, competent doctor in North America is taught by the American Medical Association to repeat the facts (that have been previously PROVEN) to a patient without bias.  Again, as I mentioned in class, I have had my fair share of poor health, and with each return to the hospital, I accepted the doctor’s knowledge. Now, I am not necessarily saying I went ahead with a certain procedure, but I certainly listened to their set of facts. After having time to digest their knowledge, I approached another physician and listened to their set of facts. Although society considers this to be “getting a second opinion”, I do not. This is a misuse of the second term “opinion”. The second doctor is repeating the knowledge that they were exposed to in their particular medical texts.  Much of the time the information between the physicians overlapped. After contemplating both approaches, I finally chose the method I saw fit to treat my problem, and this, at last, was my opinion on which treatment was better for my specific case.