Yea, I dare arguing against a silly picture from the internet, how badass.

Listen, you clown, unless you can't be bothered, feel free to look at the graphic again. Does it mention "logic" anywhere?

So you seem to be the epistemology expert here, you tell me.
The "correctness" of a logical conclusion based on facts, and the "incorrectness" of a logical fallacy, that fits where? Does deducible count as "provable"?
Or is it "opinion", as it's a construct based on facts?

Here's the thing, the graphic is INCOMPLETE, and I was just asking to fill it in. Not even fucking arguing against anything.
It also leaves out the distinction between opinions aimed at getting a grasp of objective facts, and opinions as completely subjective states of mind (a part you clearly overlooked on purpose).
Why that matters? Because it's a fundamental difference whether I say "you're wrong" to someone for disliking a movie I'm a fan of, or for using a clear fallacy, like faulty analogy, in their argument, or making some kind of completely absurd conclusion.

You throw all that in the bag of "opinions", what you get is a mess.

But hey, you want me to argue? Very fine.

"Facts are certainties"
The definition of a fact is something that is, independent of the observer.
It's not a given that the knowledge, or comprehension of this "fact", can be called a "certainty".
Having a statistic in your hand is a certainty, the accuracy of that statistic, not so much.
Very fallible, all based on probabilities (including the accuracy of the methods of getting the statistic), very dependent on numerous independent confirmations, and so, very, disputable (down to the very methods of research and quality control).

Opinions are disputable, sure (and in case of the subjective opinions, there ain't even anything to dispute, merely exchange and express) - but so are many of the things listed as the "buzz-words" for "facts".

What about those on the other half?
"Always, never"... what? Ok, how about physical laws? Those are as close to "certain facts" as it gets, and physical laws apply "always" in given circumstances.

"Might" Sounds like an opinion, but it can often be as close to "certainty" as it gets. We might give the patient this and that treatment, and with a certain probability, he MIGHT respond well.
Is it an "opinion", or the best current FACTUAL KNOWLEDGE?

So this is something for you to ponder.
Mainly whether you should continue to treat some random internet graphic (with a fat false dichotomy in it, at that) as the Holy Bible.

Or, hey, you know, just say "tl;dr" and then some stupid shit like "lol he's trying to redefine common academic definitions in order to justify his opinions about ANH".
Whatever floats your boat, mate, but beware - it may only float in your mind.