If you only base your opinions on facts, you can't really have opinions about very many things. Very mundane details of historical events. Narrowly defined conclusions of studies which are almost never actually specifically applicable to any situation at hand. If you believe science reporting headlines you might think you are basing your opinions on facts, but if you actually read the papers you realize how little science can actually say.

Very few of the principles that basically everyone relies on to make value judgements are based on actual research. Most people who purport to base their opinions solely on scientific research are saying that because they have some small number of sample opinions that contradict commonly held opinions and which are based on facts. They then generalize to "all my beliefs are based on facts" even though basically none of these people actually audit their beliefs in any systematic way. The subjective experience of being an outspoken proponent of a factual analysis leads to the false generalization of that story into all aspects of their life.

But in fact we make thousands of judgements every day, the vast majority of which are based on a few casual observations, or our internal model of the universe, which, while based on facts, is not a reliable witness, nor is it a scientifically valid source of data.

But there's a difference between "scientific proof" and "fact". Science has never proven that Old Spice is the best scent, but the fact is that's what I wear and my wife likes the way I smell. It is my opinion that Old Spice is the best based on the fact that my wife likes it.

Fact doesn't have to be based on research or science, all it means is "the truth". It is a fact that I have a dog sitting on my couch. I don't need actual research to back that up, it's just a fact. It is not a fact that my friend, who died a few years ago, is also sitting on the couch beside me. That's just a belief, based on faith. There has been zero scientific research into either of these claims, but one is undeniable fact and the other is not. It doesn't matter if you don't believe that I have a dog. Your lack of belief doesn't make it less true.

I honestly don't even remember what we're actually talking about, and at this point I'm pretty sure I don't care anymore. Sorry.

> It is my opinion that Old Spice is the best based on the fact that my wife likes it.

That's not a rational conclusion. Why make a baseless comparative judgement like "it's the best" when you can make a qualitative judgement, like "it's good" or "my wife likes it".

That's my point. You think you're scientifically minded, but you have opinions like "Old Spice is the best" that aren't based on facts at all.

> It is a fact that I have a dog sitting on my couch.

This falls into the category of "mundane historical events" I mentioned above.

> I honestly don't even remember what we're actually talking about, and at this point I'm pretty sure I don't care anymore. Sorry.

My guess is you don't have any rational disagreement with what I said, so you just started saying random things about hypothetical situations and you bored yourself.