I’ve already pointed out and explained why having to refer to a dictionary for a word in yourt argument undermines the strength of your argument using that word.

“There is no ‘science’ that understands something. ”

Oh, better than the sun, I’ll have you know. (;
Really is that the best you can do in refutation?
(I obviously meant the definitions of these words as used by scientists)

“You claim that “In science, facts ARE based on opinions.”
Is there anyway that I can verify that claim?”

I’ve tried to lead you there, but you adamantly refuse to follow.
This will get you there….
Is evolution a fact?
Think about it.
(But first you need the correct answer and, going on past performance, that’s going to be a little difficult I think)

I responded to your thing about opinion and science by linking you to the definition of ‘scientific fact’. I’ll write it out for you.
A scientific fact is–
” an observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as true (although it truth is never final).”

So I would say that a ‘scientific fact’ is based on observations.

You can check this claim– type “scientific fact definition” — into the search engine of your choice.

You claim that “In science, facts ARE based on opinions.”
Is there anyway that I can verify that claim?

I’ve been very clear throughout this entire thread that the definitions of ‘fact’, ‘objective’, and ‘opinion’ that I have used are the definitions as understood by science. I’ve repeated those defintions at least three times and not once have you responded, let alone made any attempt to take them apart. Yet here you are offering alternative meanings that are so divorced from science as to be totally useless.
Science is a practical pursuit and it has a proven record.
Your definitions have no practical use whatsoever.
Here again are my defintions as understood by science.

The word ‘objective’ in science simply means based on the cold, hard facts untainted by emotion, bias, or prejudice.
The word ‘fact’ in science can be understood as follows:

My bald opinion is worth nothing.
My opinion backed up by evidence is worth something.
The opinion of an expert backed up by lots of cold, hard evidence is worth a great deal.
The consensus opinion of experts backed up by a mountain of cold, hard evidence is worth a great deal more.
If the evidence is so overwhelming that it is extremely unlikely ever to be overturned, that opinion is elevated to the status of a scientific fact.

Combining the two: if a scientific fact is based on cold hard evidence untainted by emotion, bias, and prejudice, it is an objective fact.
For example evolution is an objective fact in science.
Does that mean it cannot be overturned? Nope – just produce the cold hard evidenceand the fact of evoution will be overturned.

sonic: “I can’t have a fact based on opinions”

In science, facts ARE based on opinions.
But let me qualify….
Is evolution a fact?
You never answered that question.
Evolution IS a fact because it is based on the consensus of experts whose opinions are based on such a large body of cold, hard evidence untainted by emotion and bias (that is to say objective evidence) from so many different fields of science that it is unlikely ever to be overturned.
That’s what makes evolution a fact.
That’s what a fact means in science.
And, yes, given sufficient extraordinary contrary evidence, a fact in science can be overturned.

By your definition, nothing can be a fact, which makes that word totally superfluous.
It’s a definition divorced from science and therefore of no practical use.

sonic; “I can have an opinion based on facts.”

Not unless you are sloppy in your use of the word ‘fact’.
But you can have an opinon based on evidence.
It takes extraordinary evidence to establish a fact.

“It is bias to think that pain is less desirable than pleasure”
“It is bias to think that a long life is better than a short one”
“Many would answer the question about HD and CB this way– “Which one will kill me soonest? I’ll take that.”
“Oh, you don’t want to live a life of slowly degrading motor and mental skills? But that is just the emotion of fear”
“The sun has an objective view of things.”

What can I say?
Meaning that I have so much to say that I don’t know where to start.
I’ll just pick one:

“The sun has an objective view of things. It doesn’t care if I live or die or how I live or die. It doesn’t care if all humanity is wiped out today or the next day. And that is an objective view of the situation.”

The sun does not have an opinion at all. And, if it can’t have an opinion, it can’t have an objective opinion. And it can’t care or not care. But people can have opinions. And they can care. It seems the two go hand in hand. But we can sort their evidence-based opinions from their emotion based opinons. The opinions based on cold, hard evidence untainted by emotion and bias get the nod. And a consenus of opinion based on cold hard evidence establishes objective facts.

That’s science, sonic.
I don’t know what game you are playing.

This is largely a matter of what the words mean and how people are.

Opinions -especially those that involve choices that effect oneself- can be based on fact, but will always have bias and emotion involved. Sometimes these biases are shared by many and are therefore considered normal or good. But that is just bias as well.
For example–
It is bias to think that pain is less desirable than pleasure– a bias not shared by all.
It is bias to think that a long life is better than a short one– a bias not shared by all. It might surprise you to talk to the people at the hospital where I used to work. Many of them would answer the question about HD and CB this way– “Which one will kill me soonest? I’l take that.”
They had a different bias than most.

How would one really know which would be a better life for himself anyway?– Certainly not by experiment. You only live once at a time– we can’t have a control life to test against the other options- can we? And how do you intend to double-blind the darn thing?
So we speculate based on facts, emotion and bias.
Oh, you don’t want to live a life of slowly degrading motor and mental skills? But that is just the emotion of fear. Meet someone who would gladly take on the challenge and you will know what I mean.
You can find people like that in the hospital too.

The sun has an objective view of things. It doesn’t care if I live or die or how I live or die. It doesn’t care if all humanity is wiped out today or the next day. And that is an objective view of the situation.

I’m guessing that you have the bias that life is good. In particular you probably think that human life– and specifically your own life- is good.
You probably have quite an emotional attachment to that notion.

I’m not saying you shouldn’t have that. I am saying that we don’t all have that all the time- and anytime that notion impacts your thinking you are forming an opinion based not only on fact- but on bias and emotion as well.

I can tell you this– any question about what I prefer will be answered differently depending on when you ask. And that includes between HD and CB.

And that’s the cold hard fact about that.

Sorry if this is horrible news.

I prefer HD to CB.
My preference is based on the unemotional, detached, unbiased, cold, hard facts about HD and CB as derived by scientists working in the respective areas of interest.
In other words, my preference is based on objective facts about HD and CB.

Put it this way:
If you had absolutely no knowledge of HD and CB, if they were just words you couldn’t even find in a dictionary, what would be your preference? Obviously you could have no preference and, if forced to choose, you might as well flip a coin. Now, suppose you are given detailed information about these conditions – the unemotional, detached, unbiased, cold, hard facts about HD and CB as derived by scientists working in the respective areas of interest.
What would your preference be now?

My answer is that I would prefer CB.
And this is my unemotional, unbiased, detached answer.
Do you think that it is impossible to prefer CB in an unemotional, unbiased, detached manner based purely on the cold, hard facts about HD and CB?

If you don’t understand what a word means when you look it up, it is probably because you don’t know what one or more of the words in the definition mean. Once I learned that trick– I can understand what a word means by looking it up almost every time. It’s amazing–

So if you look up ‘detached’– you find
‘exhibiting an aloof objectivity usually free from prejudice or self-interest.’

So if you want me to answer a question about what I would prefer– well my detached answer will be ‘no preference’. That’s because I’m demonstrating ‘aloof objectivity without any self-interest.’ Right? You can grant me that it is a proper use of the language to say that my detached answer to questions involving personal interests would be ‘no preference’.
Any other answer demonstrates self-interest. But the ‘detached’ answer has no self-interest.
I really like “No preference,” here– don’t you?

Now I understand that you have an opinion about the goodness or badness of some diseases. So do I.
Is your opinion about the goodness or badness of these diseases the same as an objective fact?
Another way to ask that question– if I disagree with you is it because I’m wrong?
I ask because if you disagree with me about something- history indicates that you might be right– in fact I can be wrong about important things. At least I have been before.
So you can see why I don’t think my opinion is the same as objective fact.
And I am very curious about yours.
(See, if we are going to discuss something like the difficulties of defining ‘fitness’ for example- I need to know if you are ever wrong. If you can be wrong- then we can discuss. If you can’t be wrong- then you can just tell me.)
Kapeesh?

I like your style.

Okay then:

“Why is Huntington’s disease, all that it is and all that it does, BAD?”

Huntington’s Disease is ‘bad’, because it causes neurological deterioration resulting in progressive physical, mental, and psychiatric disability. Or in a little more detail:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huntington%27s_disease#Signs_and_symptoms

The earliest symptoms are often subtle problems with mood or cognition. A general lack of coordination and an unsteady gait often follows. As the disease advances, uncoordinated, jerky body movements become more apparent, along with a decline in mental abilities and behavioral and psychiatric problems. Physical abilities are gradually impeded until coordinated movement becomes very difficult. Mental abilities generally decline into dementia. Complications such as pneumonia, heart disease, and physical injury from falls reduce life expectancy to around twenty years after symptoms begin

So, do I get to see the point of your hook?

But since I’ve enjoyed engaging you in this way, I’ll leave you with another question if I may:

What do you think might be my motivation for asking you why Huntington’s disease and all that it is and does is BAD while a cure for Huntington’s disease would be GOOD?

I don’t want you to answer. i just want you to carry the question with you for a while.
all the best,
M

“I said that my “unemotional, unbiased, detached answer is I have no preference.”
I think you misquote me due to a misunderstanding of what those qualifying words mean.”

Nope.
Here is what I said about the meaning of ‘objective’ in science:
The word ‘objective’ in science simply means based on the cold, hard facts untainted by emotion, bias, or prejudice.
So I understand exactly what you are saying.
Your error is in thinking that a cold, hard, unemotional, unbiased, detached appraisal of HD and CB cannot lead you to have an opinion about which you would prefer to have. That is clearly false.