Objective Truth vs. Personal Opinion

[trwthlark]

What is the name of your state? New York

I need an official resolution regarding the following dispute:

I claim that a certain scientific observation is an objective truth.

Another party writes to me that what I claim is just my personal opinion.

I thought that probably this dispute could be resolved in most amicable way by mediation. Unfortunately, the dispute in question is a high stakes dispute and bringing the other party to the table is far from straightforward, despite the very clear ``yes or no'' essence of the outcome.

I would appreciate it if you could share some thoughts as to the possible scenarios and approaches to resolve the dispute at hand. Thanks for the help.

 

[quincy]

What is the name of your state? New York

I need an official resolution regarding the following dispute:

I claim that a certain scientific observation is an objective truth.

Another party writes to me that what I claim is just my personal opinion.

I thought that probably this dispute could be resolved in most amicable way by mediation. Unfortunately, the dispute in question is a high stakes dispute and bringing the other party to the table is far from straightforward, despite the very clear ``yes or no'' essence of the outcome.

I would appreciate it if you could share some thoughts as to the possible scenarios and approaches to resolve the dispute at hand. Thanks for the help.

This does not appear to be a copyright or trademark issue.

Facts when stated can be proved true or false. Opinions cannot be.

You will not be able to get an "official resolution" on an Internet forum.

Good luck with your high stakes dispute.

 

[Taxing Matters]

I would appreciate it if you could share some thoughts as to the possible scenarios and approaches to resolve the dispute at hand. Thanks for the help.

Your post is very vague as to the nature of the dispute and so far I'm not seeing anything that suggests this is a legal dispute of any kind. There are all kinds of ways one might resolve a non-legal dispute, including mediation, arbitration, or even just flipping a coin for that matter. It really comes down to what the parties involved can agree upon to resolve the dispute.

 

[quincy]

As an additional note, "scientific observation" can be evidence used to support a theory or hypothesis.

But, like TM, I see no legal question to answer.

 

[trwthlark]

I didn't see where I could post this question, so I chose what seemed to be the closest topic. Now, I really want to avoid litigation but try to resolve the matter somehow out of court. I thought mediation might be a choice but I don't see how a compromise can be reached on something which is clear cut -- the issue at hand can either be an objective fact, a truth, or it can be a personal opinion. The main problem, as far as I can see, however, is to have the other party agree to a meeting. Is it really so difficult to establish the truth? Seems even impossible. What do you think?

 

[quincy]

I didn't see where I could post this question, so I chose what seemed to be the closest topic. Now, I really want to avoid litigation but try to resolve the matter somehow out of court. I thought mediation might be a choice but I don't see how a compromise can be reached on something which is clear cut -- the issue at hand can either be an objective fact, a truth, or it can be a personal opinion. The main problem, as far as I can see, however, is to have the other party agree to a meeting. Is it really so difficult to establish the truth? Seems even impossible. What do you think?

It can be impossible at times to determine "truth." In law, one must often be satisfied with the best version of the truth.

Opinion is easier to judge. There is no truth in opinion.

How you can settle your dispute is something I can't tell you.

Your concern does not really seem to be a legal one.

Good luck.

 

[trwthlark]

There is no truth in opinion.

Exactly. When the other party says that my claim that something is a fact, a truth, is just my personal opinion, this means that said party has concluded that there is no truth in what I'm claiming. I don't agree with such a conclusion and that's the essence of the dispute.

I agree that at times it can be impossible to determine truth but in this particular case the truth can be determined unequivocally. This is what I would like to establish by meeting with the opposing party. How can such conversation be achieved? It seems to me that in cases such as this, when truth can be established unequivocally, there should be ways to bring disputing that to a closure.

 

[Taxing Matters]

Now, I really want to avoid litigation but try to resolve the matter somehow out of court.

You may only resolve this in court if the dispute concerns something that involves a legal issue between you, and not knowing what this "scientific observation" is and why this is an issue between you there is now way I can say whether it is something that you could even bring in court. If you care to tell us what you claim this fact is and why it matters that the other person agree with you we might be able to provide some better feedback on the matter.

The main problem, as far as I can see, however, is to have the other party agree to a meeting. Is it really so difficult to establish the truth? Seems even impossible. What do you think?

Absent some form of legal process it may be that the only tool you have to get the other party to meet with you is your power of persuasion. The other person is not obligated to meet with you or to resolve this dispute with you. He or she needs to be convinced there is some benefit to him/her in meeting with you to discuss it.

 

[quincy]

Ask the other person to meet with you. If he won't, I cannot see how you can force him.

Again, nothing you have said indicates this is a legal issue.

Good luck.

 

[trwthlark]

The other person is not obligated to meet with you or to resolve this dispute with you.

How about if some legislative body subpoenas both parties and tries to resolve the dispute in such quasi-legal way? In such a case no party can refuse to meet with the legislators. As far as I understand, if I'm to launch a lawsuit I should seek relief for something that concerns me personally. In the case at hand, however, the real damages are incurred on society, so it seems plausible that the resolution of the dispute should be of concern to a legislative body rather than to the court system. Am I on the right track in thinking along these lines?

 

[quincy]

You are probably not on the right track, based on what you have said. But what track is the right one is difficult to say without knowing exactly what the dispute is all about.

You have provided nothing in the way of relevant information.

If the dispute is a legal one, I suggest you find an attorney in your area who can assist you. If it is not a legal dispute, I suggest you find a forum that is not a legal forum and discuss your dispute there.

Good luck.

 

[trwthlark]

If the dispute is a legal one

This I don't understand -- aren't hearings under oath in Congress quasi-legal proceedings? As far as I understand, say, the US Congress is the ultimate authority on deciding matters concerning society as a whole. Do you know of a forum that discusses such hearings as opposed to strictly legal matters concerning the judicial system which this forum is discussing? Of course, I don't want to be out of place but still need some clarity regarding the role of legislation vs. juducuary in matters concerning common good.

 

[Taxing Matters]

How about if some legislative body subpoenas both parties and tries to resolve the dispute in such quasi-legal way?

If you are in the U.S. that won't work. Legislatures issue subpoenas only very rarely, and when they do it is not to resolve a dispute between two people. Again, if you care to share what this dispute is perhaps you can get some more useful information. I think it very unlikely that whatever this dispute is would be something of such significance that a legislature would hold hearings on it.

 

[Taxing Matters]

This I don't understand -- aren't hearings under oath in Congress quasi-legal proceedings?

The Congress is not a court and it does not resolve disputes between parties. When Congress holds hearings it it is to get testimony so that members of Congress can better understand an issue and decide what, if any, legislation might be needed to address that issue. Same with state legislatures. They are not a forum for resolving private disputes.

 

[quincy]

trwthlark, please tell us exactly what your dispute is over and let us know exactly how you think a legal forum can be of assistance.

Thanks.