Are You Entitled To Your Opinion?

[And Its Smith]

Having had a debate on another thread this evening I realised that a lot of people have opinions based on nothing. No knowledge of the subject they are talking on. Why should someone who cannot do any sort of research be allowed an opinion?

Found this which was quite interesting so thought I'd share, seeing as this is a forum with a lot of opinions.

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.

― Harlan Ellison

From American Philosophy lecturer Patrick Stokes:

Every year, I try to do at least two things with my students at least once. First, I make a point of addressing them as philosophers a bit cheesy, but hopefully it encourages active learning.

Secondly, I say something like this: Im sure youve heard the expression everyone is entitled to their opinion. Perhaps youve even said it yourself, maybe to head off an argument or bring one to a close. Well, as soon as you walk into this room, its no longer true. You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.

A bit harsh? Perhaps, but philosophy teachers owe it to our students to teach them how to construct and defend an argument and to recognize when a belief has become indefensible.

The problem with Im entitled to my opinion is that, all too often, its used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for I can say or think whatever I like and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful. And this attitude feeds, I suggest, into the false equivalence between experts and non-experts that is an increasingly pernicious feature of our public discourse.

Firstly, whats an opinion?

Plato distinguished between opinion or common belief (doxa) and certain knowledge, and thats still a workable distinction today: unlike 1+1=2 or there are no square circles, an opinion has a degree of subjectivity and uncertainty to it. But opinion ranges from tastes or preferences, through views about questions that concern most people such as prudence or politics, to views grounded in technical expertise, such as legal or scientific opinions.

You cant really argue about the first kind of opinion. Id be silly to insist that youre wrong to think strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate. The problem is that sometimes we implicitly seem to take opinions of the second and even the third sort to be unarguable in the way questions of taste are. Perhaps thats one reason (no doubt there are others) why enthusiastic amateurs think theyre entitled to disagree with climate scientists and immunologists and have their views respected.

Meryl Dorey is the leader of the Australian Vaccination Network, which despite the name is vehemently anti-vaccine. Ms. Dorey has no medical qualifications, but argues that if Bob Brown is allowed to comment on nuclear power despite not being a scientist, she should be allowed to comment on vaccines. But no-one assumes Dr. Brown is an authority on the physics of nuclear fission; his job is to comment on the policy responses to the science, not the science itself.

So what does it mean to be entitled to an opinion?

If Everyones entitled to their opinion just means no-one has the right to stop people thinking and saying whatever they want, then the statement is true, but fairly trivial. No one can stop you saying that vaccines cause autism, no matter how many times that claim has been disproven.

But if entitled to an opinion means entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth then its pretty clearly false. And this too is a distinction that tends to get blurred.

On Monday, the ABCs Mediawatch program took WIN-TV Wollongong to task for running a story on a measles outbreak which included comment from you guessed it Meryl Dorey. In a response to a viewer complaint, WIN said that the story was accurate, fair and balanced and presented the views of the medical practitioners and of the choice groups. But this implies an equal right to be heard on a matter in which only one of the two parties has the relevant expertise. Again, if this was about policy responses to science, this would be reasonable. But the so-called debate here is about the science itself, and the choice groups simply dont have a claim on air time if thats where the disagreement is supposed to lie.

Mediawatch host Jonathan Holmes was considerably more blunt: theres evidence, and theres bulldust, and its no part of a reporters job to give bulldust equal time with serious expertise.

The response from anti-vaccination voices was predictable. On the Mediawatch site, Ms. Dorey accused the ABC of openly calling for censorship of a scientific debate. This response confuses not having your views taken seriously with not being allowed to hold or express those views at all or to borrow a phrase from Andrew Brown, it confuses losing an argument with losing the right to argue. Again, two senses of entitlement to an opinion are being conflated here.

So next time you hear someone declare theyre entitled to their opinion, ask them why they think that. Chances are, if nothing else, youll end up having a more enjoyable conversation that way.

[Slacker]

Wow!Thats intense.Opinions are only opinions.They are not fact.Some people like art/film and restaurant critics,make a living from their opinions.For what it is worth I can never grasp who decides that these peoples opinions are more worthy than anyone elses.To my mind the whole critique thing is pretentious rubbish.I personally find pretty much all modern art to be an eyesore and am offended that most of it is paid for by the taxpayer.However that is just my opinion.

[And Its Smith]

Wow!Thats intense.Opinions are only opinions.They are not fact.Some people like art/film and restaurant critics,make a living from their opinions.For what it is worth I can never grasp who decides that these peoples opinions are more worthy than anyone elses.To my mind the whole critique thing is pretentious rubbish.I personally find pretty much all modern art to be an eyesore and am offended that most of it is paid for by the taxpayer.However that is just my opinion.

As it says though, there are different types of opinions. Yours on art is the same as the ice cream example:

"You cant really argue about the first kind of opinion. Id be silly to insist that youre wrong to think strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate. The problem is that sometimes we implicitly seem to take opinions of the second and even the third sort to be unarguable in the way questions of taste are. Perhaps thats one reason (no doubt there are others) why enthusiastic amateurs think theyre entitled to disagree with climate scientists and immunologists and have their views respected"

[Slacker]

I think to be honest Dave,my understanding of opinion is very simple,maybe even naive,but to my mind everyone certainly is entitled to an opinion and someones opinion if expressed truthfully cannot be wrong.It may well place them in the minority but it is part of what makes you who you are.

[Slacker]

Thinking about this I may have found a flaw in my own arguement.Seeing as I am slightly colourblind between blue and green,if you were to show me a green object I may tell you in my opinion it is blue.I suppose in this case my opinion would be wrong.

[Welcome To The Jungle]

Everyones entitled to an opinion but voicing some should be illegal. I'm not a big fan of freedom of speech

[Slacker]

The irony being those thatv should keep their opinions to themselves are the ones most eager to share them.

[Fordy62]

Thinking about this I may have found a flaw in my own arguement.Seeing as I am slightly colourblind between blue and green,if you were to show me a green object I may tell you in my opinion it is blue.I suppose in this case my opinion would be wrong.

Interesting point this, maybe slightly off at a tangent, but nevertheless interesting...

I see City's home kit and think its red. You see City's home kit and think its red.

It's definitely red right? Wrong.

Who's to say that you don't see the kit as green, but in your brain the word for green is red? You may be seeing my green, but it's your red and we're seeing two different colours.

Anyway, I'm confusing myself. Anyone understand?

[Fiale]

I go along with Daniel Moynihan and "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"

We all have opinions (on just about everything) and I believe most people would be willing change it upon convincing arguments. Individual opinions are shaped overtime through education and experience, but we should all have an opinion on a subject, even if not fully informed - it is only those that are not willing to be educated or have their opinion shaped that I see as a problem.

[Fordy62]

I go along with Daniel Moynihan and "everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts"

We all have opinions (on just about everything) and I believe most people would be willing change it upon convincing arguments. Individual opinions are shaped overtime through education and experience, but we should all have an opinion on a subject, even if not fully informed - it is only those that are not willing to be educated or have their opinion shaped that I see as a problem.

Entirely right.

Now, if only you'd go and change your avatar. I dream about that horrible think you know.

[kevinmabbuttshair]

I go with Dirty Harry. Opinions are like arse holes.

Everybody's got one

[Byrd9999]

Interesting point this, maybe slightly off at a tangent, but nevertheless interesting...

I see City's home kit and think its red. You see City's home kit and think its red.

It's definitely red right? Wrong.

Who's to say that you don't see the kit as green, but in your brain the word for green is red? You may be seeing my green, but it's your red and we're seeing two different colours.

Anyway, I'm confusing myself. Anyone understand?

I know what you mean, but in arguments of this type it is then better to refine the question. Regardless of what colour our brains might interpret, we can all agree that City's home kit emits light in the visible spectrum at a wavelength of approx 650-700nm. The "colour" then is a superficial construct

[Byrd9999]

I go with Dirty Harry. Opinions are like arse holes.

Everybody's got one

Opinions are like skin cells. Everyone's got them, they have about 8 layers of depth, and they get shed gradually over time.

[Davros]

I know what you mean, but in arguments of this type it is then better to refine the question. Regardless of what colour our brains might interpret, we can all agree that City's home kit emits light in the visible spectrum at a wavelength of approx 650-700nm. The "colour" then is a superficial construct

Excellent