Facts, Opinions, and the Space Between

Readers of our newsletter know that the SweetLightning editors have assiduously sought to deal with science and facts while we have tried hard to stay away from opinions. We believe we have been largely successful in this pursuit. We know it makes our articles more trustworthy, if somewhat less controversial.

Increasingly, and somewhat to our dismay, we began to realize that facts alone are not enough. If our objective is to help our readers increase their understanding of the topics we write about, then we need to help with meaning; in some instances, we need to say why these facts matter, and what impacts they have on us and on our world. In other words, we must begin offering opinions in some articles. 

When we look out on the digital world of the internet, it appears to have become a discursive morass, devoid of fact, dominated by a lot of “yelling”, bullying, distortion, and appeals to emotion where the loudest voices often substitute conviction for thought or reason. Even so, we believe the internet still has room for a slower, quieter kind of opinion—one that listens first, thinks second, and writes third.

What we mean by “opinion”

We’ve been cautious about that word. As we've noted, the internet is full of opinions, many loud and few useful. Some clarify, but many distort.  In our view, a good opinion, like good science, is built on evidence, reason, and openness to change. A bad opinion, on the other hand, ignores or bends facts to serve an agenda. The first invites reflection; the second only deepens noise. The difference isn’t tone or politics: it’s integrity. We could, in fact, have called them good and evil opinions instead.

Of course, in many instances, making arguments to serve an agenda is an important part of our society, specifically in judicial and political endeavours. Our lawyer friends point out that justice requires that at least two points of view, based on an agreed-upon set of facts, be advocated in front of an independent party to determine what is “lawful” or “unlawful”. Advocates for both points of view (opinions) use rhetorical arguments to make their cases for one interpretation of the facts. Notice here that advocative arguments get to argue for interpretations but, properly, don't get to make up facts.

We will not be using opinion here to advocate for our interpretation. Nor will we make up facts. We hope instead to use opinion much like a scientific hypothesis. It begins with observations based on fact, draws a tentative conclusion or offers a tentative explanation, and invites testing—by counter-argument, by new evidence, or by moral reasoning. As with science, the best opinions are provisional, willing to evolve as understanding deepens. Opinions are like socks: warm and comforting at first, they work best if they can be changed when they get crusty.

Our standard

We will hold our opinion pieces to the same standards as our fact-based work:

• Evidence first. Every argument must rest on verifiable information, preferably peer-reviewed.
• Transparency. Where uncertainty exists, we’ll name it.
• Respect. We’ll engage disagreement as part of inquiry, not as conflict.
• Revision. If new data or better reasoning emerges, we’ll adapt.

So, in the months ahead, you’ll see some articles that begin with the science you’ve come to expect, but continue into reflection, asking what these facts mean. Our commitment to accuracy remains absolute. What’s changing is our willingness to say: Here is what we think this means.

We hope you’ll join us in that conversation—not as partisans, but as participants in the ongoing human project of understanding our world.

Click here to see our opinion pieces so far.