|
Post by mc15 on Oct 8, 2012 17:50:38 GMT 10
Came across this article below last week. Seems to have gone viral overnight, so I thought I would share it with the forum as the topic of people's opinions always seems to pop up.
Not intending to get under any ones skin by posting this... Just sharing an observant article which I happen to agree with
By Patrick Stokes, Deakin University
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: “I’m sure you’ve heard the expression ‘everyone is entitled to their opinion.’ Perhaps you’ve 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, it’s 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 “I’m entitled to my opinion” is that, all too often, it’s 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, what’s an opinion?
Plato distinguished between opinion or common belief (doxa) and certain knowledge, and that’s 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 can’t really argue about the first kind of opinion. I’d be silly to insist that you’re 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 that’s one reason (no doubt there are others) why enthusiastic amateurs think they’re 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 “Everyone’s 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 it’s pretty clearly false. And this too is a distinction that tends to get blurred.
On Monday, the ABC’s 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 don’t have a claim on air time if that’s where the disagreement is supposed to lie.
Mediawatch host Jonathan Holmes was considerably more blunt: “there’s evidence, and there’s bulldust,” and it’s no part of a reporter’s 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 they’re entitled to their opinion, ask them why they think that. Chances are, if nothing else, you’ll end up having a more enjoyable conversation that way.
Patrick Stokes does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has no relevant affiliations.
|
|
|
Post by perfeckt on Oct 8, 2012 19:00:44 GMT 10
Thanx, mc15 but in my opinion.....................................................
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 8, 2012 20:10:04 GMT 10
Good find, mc15.
I find it hard to imagine why this has gone viral, since it is an opinion on opinion that has done the rounds with academics – and others - since time immemorial.
At least in my opinion.
Now that everyone in the world can be a publisher – well, or at least those with access to the technology – I suspect that we will see an increasingly more strident claim to the validity of opinion with the virtually unfettered freedom of expression that has been delivered to us in recent times.
Forums such as this (and Facebook, and Twitter) not only facilitate the expression of opinion. By their very nature they encourage it. However, where an opinion is placed under serious scrutiny here or elsewhere, the publisher of that opinion will more often than not go into defensive mode and claim that he or she is fundamentally entitled to the view and need say or do no more.
More often than not, that will end the discussion forthwith.
As unsatisfactory as that response might be, it is human nature, I venture to say. None of us likes to be proven wrong. None of us likes to have an opinion shown to be indefensible. None of us likes to be made to look foolish, or to feel foolish because of opinions that may have been expressed.
None of us likes to admit that an opinion was misguided or that it was wrong.
This is rather unfortunate trait, for it is only through reason and analysis on the basis of established fact or at least empirical evidence that we can ever seek to arrive at the truth.
And if necessary, admit that we were wrong.
One of my several concerns with access to online publishing technology lies in the paradox of that technology. The potential is there to both lead us to truth and to drive us further from discovering truth – depending on how effectively an opinion is argued, depending on whose opinion it might be, and how popular that opinion might currently be in the public domain.
Nearly a hundred years ago, Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen argued that “the minority is always right”. In expressing that opinion, he even placed a timeline on truth, claiming that it took around fifteen years for the majority to latch on to what had been espoused by the vanguard in reasoned thinking and imagination. By then, of course, thinking – and opinion – on all sorts of matters would have changed as the community entered a new dawning of ideas.
Every day, all of us express views on matters of the world. We are opinionated creatures who would be largely paralysed into inactivity if we did not have a view on matters and if we did not seek, at appropriate times, to translate opinions into action.
It is not an enshrined human entitlement to hold or express an opinion that cannot be argued and justified through reason or empirical evidence. Especially and particularly if such opinion is based on any fallacious premise and may create mischief or to do harm to others – either intentional or unintentional.
The potentially damaging effect of misguided, untruthful or simply malicious opinion expressed online – through unregulated vehicles such as Facebook and Twitter – is something that has become a matter of great urgency to legislators, who face an unprecedented and unanticipated challenge.
At the same time, in encouraging and allowing divergent opinions on a range of baseball-related matters, this Forum – and its like – offers members the opportunity to consider alternative viewpoints. To test them for their validity or to reject them for their unfairness, their untruthfulness or any other perceived shortcomings.
I sense that regular Forum members have become an increasingly more discerning lot – especially in more recent times. While there is still the occasional ill-considered or unjustified remark that might be expressed, the interchange of views – and the expression of opinion – is for the most part made in good humour and with an open mind.
Opinion?
Well - as Forum regular Phil Allen likes to point out – opinions are a bit like a certain part of human nether regions. Everyone has one.
Are we entitled to our opinion as an inalienable right? Maybe. Sometimes. Maybe not.
|
|
|
Post by perfeckt on Oct 8, 2012 20:24:46 GMT 10
Great pieces mc15 and kc.
|
|
|
Post by eckersley43 on Oct 9, 2012 7:44:29 GMT 10
Totally agree with the philosophy, but one problem arises in separating "fact" from "opinion" Most heated debates revolve on the "facts" not being empirical or universally agreed upon. e.g. "Who is the best footballer in the A.F.L?" ultimately cannot be resolved by facts.Similarly many debate issues in baseball forums rely on the participants "interpretation" of facts that involve judgement decisions regarding cause/ blame/ credit etc. All of which is based on my opinion,not any "facts"
|
|
|
Post by mc15 on Oct 9, 2012 8:41:07 GMT 10
Totally agree with the philosophy, but one problem arises in separating "fact" from "opinion" Most heated debates revolve on the "facts" not being empirical or universally agreed upon. e.g. "Who is the best footballer in the A.F.L?" ultimately cannot be resolved by facts.Similarly many debate issues in baseball forums rely on the participants "interpretation" of facts that involve judgement decisions regarding cause/ blame/ credit etc. All of which is based on my opinion,not any "facts" What you've described is the quintessential difference between fact and opinion. Who is the best AFL footballer is subjective and is therefore opinion based. The supporting evidence then supports the case for or against through statistical analysis, coaches/brownlow votes etc. The ability to use indisputable information supports the opinion. Hence the second paragraph in the article "you are only entitled to what you can argue for". It should be added... with objective measures Anything short of debating an opinion with objective measures just becomes supporting an opinion with another opinion. It cannot be a valid argument. Some arguments are very cut and dry. I'll use Houghy's post on the start time of last Friday's game for an example. The game was scheduled to start at 6pm. The game was advertised at 6pm. It was rescheduled to start at 5pm. The advertising of the rescheduling occurred late and only on some mediums. Houghy turned up at 6pm and was upset to find she had missed most of the game. These are all statements of fact. Philallen then provides commentary on worse things that are going on in the world right now than Houghy missing a game. He maybe right that there are worse things going on in the world but that is completely irrelevant to Houghy's post as it doesn't counter any of the facts that Houghy has presented. He has used opinion (his own) to counter fact. It's just not a valid argument. The line of questioning to counter Houghy's statements needs to question fact such as: Was there a change in start time? Why was their a change in start time? How much notification was given? In what mediums was the change advertised? Was their a representative of the Aces on site to discuss the change with Houghy when she arrived late etc. These questions get to the root of the problem and guides everyone in a direction to find a solution. But most importantly, it creates accountability within any argument. If it turns out that Houghy's time lines are not accurate, the accountability for her arriving late falls squarely on her shoulders. If she is correct, the accountability fall squarely on the Melbourne Aces shoulders and a rectification should be forth coming.
|
|
|
Post by wyatt33 on Oct 9, 2012 9:13:25 GMT 10
Doesn't change the fact that she was pissed off because she didn't know about the time change.....FACT!
|
|
|
Post by mc15 on Oct 9, 2012 9:30:59 GMT 10
Doesn't change the fact that she was pissed off because she didn't know about the time change.....FACT! The only relavance of emotion is that it's that catalist to posting thoughts. From there, emotion doesn't count for $hit. Was she/wasn't she provided the opportunity to be adequatly informed of the time change? That is the question that needs to be answered. From there, based on the answer, the next question is: Who is accountable? Her or the Melbourne Aces?
|
|
|
Post by parentofone on Oct 9, 2012 17:01:27 GMT 10
Wouldn't it be easier and more expedient just to see who is the fastest draw. Maybe Wyatt Earp was on to something....but that's just my opinion!!
|
|
|
Post by wyatt33 on Oct 10, 2012 10:10:27 GMT 10
No....it wouldn't matter who was to blame....she's still annoyed with the outcome. That is fact! Not an opinion. Now who's responsible for the annoyance....well that's to be discussed in another thread. Seriously though, if your trying to make people use logic(not common sense) in these arguments, it'll be the most boring forum in history. There's a forum on the Albanian Window manufacturers and cabinet makers website, that has won the Most boring Forum of year award, 3 years in a row! I read in DudForum Monthly, an online subscription I picked up trolling Eastern European porn....that's another subject altogether....anyway....where was I?
|
|
|
Post by wyatt33 on Oct 10, 2012 10:12:58 GMT 10
It'd be a pretty lame read if you made folk use only fact. Probably only be two people on here....rhricho and chardy....because they're always right!
|
|
|
Post by wako on Oct 10, 2012 11:04:25 GMT 10
How dare anyone say I'm not entitled to my opinion that Sandringham won because of the price of raisins in Timbuktu!
|
|
|
Post by oldmanriver on Oct 10, 2012 13:59:03 GMT 10
It was an interesting read until my old classmate Plato was mentioned, then I knew somewhere along the way he was going to make some sense of the situation. Both parties will say they're right in their own opinion. I am definately not going to say who is right or wrong, but there has been a misgiving about not advertising the correct time in a diligent manner. Let's hope that in the future more diligence is shown by the marketing department and more notification is given in the proper manner. Maybe my ols classmate was right after all.
|
|
|
Post by mc15 on Oct 10, 2012 16:25:45 GMT 10
No....it wouldn't matter who was to blame....she's still annoyed with the outcome. That is fact! Not an opinion. Now who's responsible for the annoyance....well that's to be discussed in another thread. Seriously though, if your trying to make people use logic(not common sense) in these arguments, it'll be the most boring forum in history. There's a forum on the Albanian Window manufacturers and cabinet makers website, that has won the Most boring Forum of year award, 3 years in a row! I read in DudForum Monthly, an online subscription I picked up trolling Eastern European porn....that's another subject altogether....anyway....where was I? "No, you're not entitled to your opinion" was the title to the article by the way... Hence the name of the thread. theconversation.edu.au/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978Wyatt, I just hope you haven't missed the point of the posting. It's not about this being boring or people not sharing their thoughts. Or god forbid having some fun doing it. It's about people putting some thought into some of their responses, in particular issues that affect everyone that we are trying to find solutions for. It's also to hit stupid comments on the head (and I'll name names) by people like Janet who seem hell bent to throw fuel on the fire then run off and disapear for weeks on end. Ultimately, I don't really care if you take anything from the article on board or not. I don't really care if you think my thoughts are boring. I shared this article because I thought that some people on here might find it interesting on how to contruct valid arguments on how to solve problems. As with any form of information, you can choose to use it or not. It is completely up to you.
|
|
|
Post by eckersley43 on Oct 10, 2012 21:27:35 GMT 10
mc15..I thought the article was interesting, and I don't read articles on cabinet making. It's ironic that Wyatt's most used response to opinions that differ from his is "you're entitled to your opinion' as if this somehow forms a rebuttal.I would have thought that "informed" opinion involved some facts.
|
|
|
Post by aueagle30 on Oct 11, 2012 10:35:55 GMT 10
mc15, strangely enough, I read this article the day before you posted it and also thought it important enough to share with people.
One of my continued criticisms of contributors to posts like this is their opinions are not based on fact or evidence, just what they think. While people are entitled to think what they think, the article is correct in noting this doesn't make the opinion right. The statement, "I'm entitled to my opinion," is not a defence and nor is, "let's agree to disagree."
The ease with which people can now express themselves (further emboldened by the anonymity of faceless communications) has led to laziness in our debates and opinion-formation. The irony isn't lost on me that we now sit at a computer with more information than ever instantly available at our fingertips, and yet we seem more willing than ever to avoid facts and project ignorant views.
Wyatt is incorrect that this forum would be boring if people only opined based on fact or defensible thoughts. The forum would be constructive, it would respectful, and it would provide greater service to its participants. It's not disrespectful to ask someone to defend their opinion. It's disrespectful to present an opinion with no defence and hide behind some false ideal.
I've asked in the past for particpants to reject my views with evidence, not just opinion. Few times have been given the respect of it occuring. Take the time to respect other particpants by offering thoughtful, reasoned arguements.
I, more than probably anyone, dislikes being proven wrong, but there's no shame in realising your opinons aren't defensible and accepting another's perspective... in fact, some could say it takes courage to admit you were mistaken.
Keep fighting the good fight mc15!
|
|
|
Post by wyatt33 on Oct 11, 2012 12:03:43 GMT 10
I'm confused...are we allowed to post on this forum anymore or not?
|
|
|
Post by mc15 on Oct 11, 2012 14:27:01 GMT 10
Well said aueagle
Wyatt, you still don't get it. Write what you want! No one cares if your thoughts are of value or not.
If you want serious discussion to get to the root of problems, bring a valid argument to the table.
If you want to talk dribble, I'm pretty sure there is a thread for that too
|
|
|
Post by wyatt33 on Oct 11, 2012 14:53:39 GMT 10
You blokes are taking yourselves way too seriously!
|
|
|
Post by wyatt33 on Oct 11, 2012 15:01:15 GMT 10
The thing about people giving their opinions, and having them well constructed, and being respectful, and all the other palarva that's being espoused in this particular thread, is that they aren't always right! So in asking people to do all that, and be right, your basically telling people to speak undisputed truths and facts, or piss off! I find that as disrespectful as anything your trying to initiate.
|
|
|
Post by mc15 on Oct 11, 2012 16:43:20 GMT 10
Wyatt. What am I trying to initiate? I've posted an article for people to read. I've tried to clarify points/comments people have made. I've made it clear, which I will do again, that people can post whatever they want, when the want and how they want. I. Do. Not. Care!
As for the other comments in your post, are you saying that you don't want people to be honest and facts based within their posts? Are you saying people should be mislead by people making stuff up? Are you saying that people who make half an effort to go through some kind of thought process disrespectful?
Mate, you need to take a deep breath and get your own thoughts straight!
|
|
|
Post by wyatt33 on Oct 11, 2012 18:04:03 GMT 10
So what's the point of the entire thread if you care so little? You've written an essay regards to people's opinion, and how they relate their opinions on this forum. It appears to me your trying to voice your opinion thru the writing of another, and that people that don't follow the guides set out in said essay, need not bother post anymore on this forum. My point is that if someone wants to make stuff up to argue a point, why shouldn't they? And who are you to tell them otherwise? If its a stupid argument, statement or opinion, it won't last long, or be taken seriously. But if the opinion is relevent, although it mightn't agree with your standard, are they expected to cease the line of thinking? Because they don't agree with yours? A bit like what I've managed to do for the past 5 hours!
|
|
|
Post by mc15 on Oct 11, 2012 18:08:40 GMT 10
The point of the thread is to try and educate. I don't care if you don't want to take anything on board. Keep howling at the moon
|
|
|
Post by stockley on Oct 11, 2012 19:23:18 GMT 10
So what's the point of the entire thread if you care so little? You've written an essay regards to people's opinion, and how they relate their opinions on this forum. It appears to me your trying to voice your opinion thru the writing of another, and that people that don't follow the guides set out in said essay, need not bother post anymore on this forum. My point is that if someone wants to make stuff up to argue a point, why shouldn't they? And who are you to tell them otherwise? If its a stupid argument, statement or opinion, it won't last long, or be taken seriously. But if the opinion is relevent, although it mightn't agree with your standard, are they expected to cease the line of thinking? Because they don't agree with yours? A bit like what I've managed to do for the past 5 hours! If people want to make stuff up to argue a point that's ok??? Seriously? Its one thing to setup a hypothetical, but just making stuff up is bullnuts! What sort of credibility do you expect to ever have after a statement like that?
|
|
|
Post by mc15 on Oct 11, 2012 21:16:52 GMT 10
Came across this article below last week. Seems to have gone viral overnight, so I thought I would share it with the forum as the topic of people's opinions always seems to pop up. Not intending to get under any ones skin by posting this... Just sharing an observant article which I happen to agree with It's as simple as that. No more, no less.
|
|
|
Post by eckersley43 on Oct 11, 2012 21:18:36 GMT 10
Wyatt..you are the only person who related Mc15's article as an attempt at censorship or an attack on the contributors to the forum..quite a remarkable achievement! I presume you don't think there are any principles of clear thinking or reasoned argument. It's not about who is right or wrong, but the basis of being able to have rational discussion.There is no suggestion of devaluing opinions/arguments by anyone.If the purpose of your argument is to inform or persuade others then the article is relevant. Alternatively if you just want to express opinions for your own entertainment, irrespective of facts, then go for it.
|
|
|
Post by perfeckt on Oct 11, 2012 21:38:54 GMT 10
My vote is for Socrates and his postulations. : D
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 11, 2012 21:42:52 GMT 10
Came across this article below last week. Seems to have gone viral overnight, so I thought I would share it with the forum as the topic of people's opinions always seems to pop up. Not intending to get under any ones skin by posting this... Just sharing an observant article which I happen to agree with It's as simple as that. No more, no less. That is understood, Michael. No-one (well, almost no-one) is imputing any other motive to a challenging post. The thread raises issues of serious import that go far beyond our humble baseball Forum. And there is nothing wrong with that.
|
|
|
Post by mc15 on Oct 11, 2012 23:06:01 GMT 10
|
|