No, you're not entitled to your opinion

[cybercoma]

Finally, an article that gets at a point I've been trying to make for a long time. I've noticed that increasingly debate ends with someone saying "we'll agree to disagree" or "everyone's entitled to their opinion." Well, in political or scientific discourse this isn't exactly appropriate. The reasons are explained in the article below. I think it's well worth reading, keeping in mind debates that have been had on this forum.

http://theconversation.edu.au/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

[TimG]

Well, in political or scientific discourse this isn't exactly appropriate. The reasons are explained in the article below.

I used to agree. That was when I thought I could trust the scientific and political institutions to make the right choices for the right reasons. I know realize that I cannot so I put an extreme value on the right to express your opinion.

[Bonam]

Finally, an article that gets at a point I've been trying to make for a long time. I've noticed that increasingly debate ends with someone saying "we'll agree to disagree" or "everyone's entitled to their opinion." Well, in political or scientific discourse this isn't exactly appropriate.

There's a big difference between political and scientific discourse. In scientific discourse, I would tend to agree, though not when it comes to some of the "softer" sciences which have yet to prove themselves to be sciences at all in any meaningful sense of the word. On the other hand, when it comes to political discourse, there is almost nothing but opinions, and that's just the reality of it.

[Moonlight Graham]

Finally, an article that gets at a point I've been trying to make for a long time. I've noticed that increasingly debate ends with someone saying "we'll agree to disagree" or "everyone's entitled to their opinion." Well, in political or scientific discourse this isn't exactly appropriate. The reasons are explained in the article below. I think it's well worth reading, keeping in mind debates that have been had on this forum.

http://theconversation.edu.au/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

I agree with the article. However, whenever I say "let's agree to disagree" on MLW it usually if not always is because both parties have laid out their arguments exhaustively and neither side is willing to budge on their views, therefore it's become clear that further argument is just going to keep going in circles so might as well end the debate to save more tiresome/time-consuming stalemates.

[betsy]

Share same as Moonlight Graham's on this.....although usually I say, "believe what you want."

After all, what's the point if no one will budge, and there's nothing new to add to the debate.

I think, the important thing is that we were able to express our opinion - whether they're right or wrong, enlightening or misguided or ignorant. Objective readers who follow the discussion will know who scored.

Edited October 6, 2012 by betsy

[Moonlight Graham]

There's a big difference between political and scientific discourse. In scientific discourse, I would tend to agree, though not when it comes to some of the "softer" sciences which have yet to prove themselves to be sciences at all in any meaningful sense of the word.

You've said the same thing about social science many times. Science is about systematically acquiring knowledge and truth through empirical evidence. Social science studies human behaviour. No some social science studies using polling and surveys are not going to be 100% accurate (hence margin for error and whatnot), but much of it is still science. Ie:

- Social science research question: Do males get into more car accidents than women?

- Hypothesis: Women get into less car accidents than men

- Test: count licensed drivers per gender, then count reported accidents by each gender

- Conclusion: men get into more car accidents than women

There are countless statistics in social science similar to this that can be proven with empirical evidence through real-world observation, not just polling. Therefore, the fields are by definition sciences.

[WWWTT]

http://theconversation.edu.au/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

Beware of this article and take it with a big grain of salt!

Not all sectors of the scientific community are completely evolved and/or developed to the point where they are producing unquestionable examples as proof of their complete understanding through study and research!

WWWTT

[Guest American Woman]

I agree with the article. However, whenever I say "let's agree to disagree" on MLW it usually if not always is because both parties have laid out their arguments exhaustively and neither side is willing to budge on their views, therefore it's become clear that further argument is just going to keep going in circles so might as well end the debate to save more tiresome/time-consuming stalemates.

And it beats the "you're a troll" (or hasbara bot or fill-in-the-blank) response(s) some here can't seem to avoid when faced with confrontation.

Edited October 6, 2012 by American Woman

[msj]

I agree with the article. However, whenever I say "let's agree to disagree" on MLW it usually if not always is because both parties have laid out their arguments exhaustively and neither side is willing to budge on their views, therefore it's become clear that further argument is just going to keep going in circles so might as well end the debate to save more tiresome/time-consuming stalemates.

And it beats the "you're a troll" (or hasbara bot or fill-in-the-blank) response(s) some here can't seem to avoid when faced with confrontation.

Which is beaten by your, oh-never-tiresome, sarcasm.

[Guest American Woman]

Not all sectors of the scientific community are completely evolved and/or developed to the point where they are producing unquestionable examples as proof of their complete understanding through study and research!

Science doesn't have all of the answers by any means, and people who turn to present day scientific knowledge as "irrefutable proof" of everything really aren't being very critical in their thinking.

[Guest Manny]

"What is truth?" - Pontius Pilate

[eyeball]

In the case of arguing about the moral and ethical decisions of governments, and the facts can't be proven or known because they're a big secret or they dribble out slowly because they're too politically charged, principles are pretty much all you have to argue with. If you stick by them and let them guide your arguments you can usually tell pretty quickly who's right and who's wrong.

[Guest American Woman]

In the case of arguing about the moral and ethical decisions of governments, and the facts can't be proven or known because they're a big secret or they dribble out slowly because they're too politically charged, principles are pretty much all you have to argue with. If you stick by them and let them guide your arguments you can usually tell pretty quickly who's right and who's wrong.

Yes, because anyone who has different principles than yours is wrong, correct?

It tells you only who is right or wrong in your mind, which is no more than your opinion.

[eyeball]

Yes, because anyone who has different principles than yours is wrong, correct?

It tells you only who is right or wrong in your mind, which is no more than your opinion.

Sometimes.

[Guest]

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.

That doesn't apply on an internet forum, so we're okay.

[Michael Hardner]

I used to agree. That was when I thought I could trust the scientific and political institutions to make the right choices for the right reasons.

You can never trust anybody to be right 100% of the time. The question is: will they make a better choice than you most of the time, and even more accurately can they be trusted to make a better choice than the average voting citizen most of the time.

I know realize that I cannot so I put an extreme value on the right to express your opinion.

The right to express an opinion came out of philosophical writings and the first democracy that came out of renaissance philosophy. How it applies to multinational megacorporations with their own satellite and YouTube channels was probably not considered by Jean Jacques Rousseau.

[Michael Hardner]

Thanks, Cybercoma for posting this.

bcsapper posted a very relevant snippet:

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.

Again, it takes me back to McLuhan. Everything is technology. We are our communications systems.

In our democracies, television is still the king of opinion makers and television makes every person sitting on the couch with a remote control into an equal partner - with their 'opinion' being equal to every other opinion owned by the public. But television and radio don't actually create a 'public' - only a false public. It services masses, and as such is a mass communication device, that pretends to inform but in fact only magnifies the worst detriments of oration, millions of times over.

Democracy was formed prior to the era of mass electronic communication, it was formed in the era of the press. It really only makes the most sense (and works the best) in that technological context. In the era of the press, the issues were decided more often by reasoned written arguments, and public participation via town halls. See Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death".

So today we have the idea of freedom of expression, freedom of the press in an entirely different communications landscape than was used to design our institutions. My believe is that this is at the root of many of our issues today such as Occupy, the Tea Party movement etc.

There is a triangle of balance between: the complexity of a government, the qualities of the media used to discuss government policy, and the sophistication of the voting public.

At the dawn of democracy in the west, we had a less complex government, discussed via multiple press articles (excellent writers and analysts like Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Paine), and a literate and involved public. Today, we have complex governments involved in every aspect of life, monitored mostly via radio and television, with a mass following that don't have direct input back into the process.

The current model for the triangle doesn't work as well as it did. So, I doubt that the article linked above would have been as relevant in this era.

Rather than hoping to make the masses smarter, it may be more realistic for us to focus on adjusting the triangle:

The Public

- giving prominence to an emerging new public, more informed and involved in issues and creating this public by creating new forums for intelligent discussion, with more influence and more pull with politicians. Such forums would be more reasoned and more serious in their discussions and would engage a more informed public naturally, via self-selection. this public would have more pull because they would be more likely to vote and more likely to influence others ( MLW is an example of this. )

The Media

- abandoning the over-simplification that is a necessary part of broadcast mass media (television and radio) and promoting media that supports analysis and point-to-point/point-by-point discussion. This is happening anyway, as the television model creaks and groans when challenged by the web ( So MLW is an example of this too ! )

The Government

- simplification of government operations. You can still service the public without a large unwieldy and unmanageable political machine to manage things. The simpler the machine, the more likely it is to serve the common person who doesn't have a lobby machine to influence legislation.

Hardner's prescription for the remaking of western society ! Easy peasy !

[TimG]

The question is: will they make a better choice than you most of the time, and even more accurately can they be trusted to make a better choice than the average voting citizen most of the time.

No the better question: what are the checks and balances that allow the truth to get out even when the scientific and political institutions fail?

A lot of the contrarian crap that gets posted is nonsense but we are better off as a society because those ideas are out there and people can see them and the counter arguments. I know some people don't like having to deal with what they see as nonsense. I say get over it.

[Guest American Woman]

Sometimes.

Most times, as most discussions are based on the gray areas of issues. I doubt, for example, if you would find people who supported the Manson murders, but whether the death penalty should have been given or whether life without parole was the right answer or whether he should be out in three years if he were 'rehabilitated' is based on one's principles - and therefore not "right" or "wrong," but simply, ultimately, "opinion."

Edited October 6, 2012 by American Woman

[Argus]

Beware of this article and take it with a big grain of salt!

Not all sectors of the scientific community are completely evolved and/or developed to the point where they are producing unquestionable examples as proof of their complete understanding through study and research!

WWWTT

Like climate sciences you mean?

Edited October 6, 2012 by Argus

[Guest Peeves]

Finally, an article that gets at a point I've been trying to make for a long time. I've noticed that increasingly debate ends with someone saying "we'll agree to disagree" or "everyone's entitled to their opinion." Well, in political or scientific discourse this isn't exactly appropriate. The reasons are explained in the article below. I think it's well worth reading, keeping in mind debates that have been had on this forum.

http://theconversation.edu.au/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

A good read. Thx.

"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."

Overlooked at times is the posters objective to provoke thought or discussion. At times as perhaps the devils advocate.

Pasting an article or referring to a premise, or (you choose),, thesis,supposition,

argument, hypothesis, assertion, assumption, postulation, presupposition, unless clearly stated does not necessarily mean the poster is 100% in agreement with the entire context.

Similarly those that don't debate the point but turn to ad hominem, are the lowest of low IMHO.

I've said before, those thinking that what is discussed here is of any import are sadly delusional.

We should be attempting to provide grist for the forum mill, not thinking we are achieving anything because some contrary fool doesn't agree with you. Obviously they're wrong so stop banging your head against another blockhead.. Meant in the nicest of ways.

Edited October 6, 2012 by Peeves

[Michael Hardner]

No the better question: what are the checks and balances that allow the truth to get out even when the scientific and political institutions fail?

Okay. I'll take that point. For the example of Climate Science, you are willing to take internet blogs and cable almost-news as a check and balance but I say that they fail the test of authority more often that not.

Suggest something better that that, maybe.

A lot of the contrarian crap that gets posted is nonsense but we are better off as a society because those ideas are out there and people can see them and the counter arguments. I know some people don't like having to deal with what they see as nonsense. I say get over it.

Well, we are better off with freedom of expression only to the point that such arguments are heard and the good ones are picked up. The best argument that has come out of the Climate Science debate is that the process needs to be plugged into the public in a better way.

The point we're looking at, to my point of view is what is the best way to design our systems of public discourse so that fringe opinions are given due consideration.

Do you think that's a good way to frame the problem ?

[Michael Hardner]

... based on one's principles - and therefore not "right" or "wrong," but simply, ultimately, "opinion."

I usually use the term 'values' - which is slightly different as a value denotes how much I think of a particular quality. A principle is more ... geometric or universal... theoretical perhaps in nature.

Examples:

Principles - openness, human rights, freedom of the press

Values: human life, patriotism, the family

Just some thoughts on such ideas...

[Guest American Woman]

I usually use the term 'values' - which is slightly different as a value denotes how much I think of a particular quality. A principle is more ... geometric or universal... theoretical perhaps in nature.

Examples:

Principles - openness, human rights, freedom of the press

Values: human life, patriotism, the family

Just some thoughts on such ideas...

I was responding to eyeball's claim that sticking to one's principles will determine who/what is right, but as I've pointed out, that's merely the same as opinion, since principles - or "values," if you prefer - vary from person to person.

[Michael Hardner]

I was responding to eyeball's claim that sticking to one's principles will determine who/what is right, but as I've pointed out, that's merely the same as opinion, since principles - or "values," if you prefer - vary from person to person.

Yes, I agree - I was just interested in the differences between one's principles and ones' values.