No, you’re not entitled to your opinion

[mike carey]

There are different types of opinion, some are just about personal preferences, others reflect one's views on various subjects. It's several years ago that this was written, and it uses Australian examples to illustrate its point, but a useful article in these troubled times. And a spoiler, the article is saying that you are not entitled to your opinion, not that you are not permitted to have one.

https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twitterbutton

[Bearofdistinction]

There are different types of opinion, some are just about personal preferences, others reflect one's views on various subjects. It's several years ago that this was written, and it uses Australian examples to illustrate its point, but a useful article in these troubled times. And a spoiler, the article is saying that you are not entitled to your opinion, not that you are not permitted to have one.

https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twitterbutton

 

Kangaroo's are not entitled to opinions -- Hot Aussie boys just wanna have fun!

[mike carey]

Kangaroo's are not entitled to opinions -- Hot Aussie boys just wanna have fun!

That's your opinion! lol.

[+ poolboy48220]

I've heard something similar expressed as "you're entitled to your own opinion, but you're not entitled to your own facts".

[AdamSmith]

Besides its main point, that article also notes and excoriates the now-rampant journalistic malpractice of giving equal time to opposing viewpoints, without taking account of when the opposing sources possess wildly differing credibility on the topic at hand.

 

One example he cites was a TV debate on vaccination, where one party was a medical doctor and the other a lay loony-tunes anti-vaxxer with no relevant credentials at all.

 

If I practiced my technology business journalism in anything remotely like that current-mainstream-TV-news manner even one time, my customers in engineering organizations -- whose job after all is to wrestle with empirical reality every day, struggling not to overlook any least thing that might let material reality eventually get the best of them, causing the bridge to collapse or the plane fall out of the sky or the car suffer catastrophic unintended acceleration -- would stop reading me that instant, and never look at anything with my byline on it ever again.

[mike carey]

Indeed, @AdamSmith. The positive point is that the idea of giving the loony-tunes anti vaxxers equal time had been excoriated in a mainstream program on TV (note it was in 2012). Media Watch is on the ABC every Monday (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/media-watch/) and challenges journalistic practice, including its own network, all the time. One of the advantages of having a public broadcaster.

[AdamSmith]

Indeed, @AdamSmith. The positive point is that the idea of giving the loony-tunes anti vaxxers equal time had been excoriated in a mainstream program on TV (note it was in 2012). Media Watch is on the ABC every Monday (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/programs/media-watch/) and challenges journalistic practice, including its own network, all the time. One of the advantages of having a public broadcaster.

Yes! Many days I think Jim Lehrer is the last sane adult TV journalist in the U.S.

[Epigonos]

My only comment here is look what happened to Galileo when he was NOT entitled to an opinion that disagreed with the prevailing scientific opinions of his day. As far as I'm concerned this concept is a very slippery slope that can and does present more than a few dangers.

This concept is terribly cute , clever and sounds great when a college/university professor of philosophy throws it out to his introductory philosophy class. However, on closer examination it his multiple problems.

[AdamSmith]

My only comment here is look what happened to Galileo when he was NOT entitled to an opinion that disagreed with the prevailing scientific opinions of his day. As far as I'm concerned this concept is a very slippery slope that can and does present more than a few dangers.

This concept is terribly cute , clever and sounds great when a college/university professor of philosophy throws it out to his introductory philosophy class. However, on closer examination it his multiple problems.

But his problems came from the Church, not from other scientists.

 

Your diagnosis is upside down.

[Epigonos]

Actually AdamSmith I am NOT incorrect regarding Galileo and the scientific world of his time. According to www.reasonableanswer.blogspot.com:

 

When it comes to the debate between heliocentrism (the Earth goes around sun) versus geocentrism (the Sun goes around Earth), the Church was not the primary opponent to Galileo and Copernicus. The chief opponents of heliocentrism were the secular Aristotelean scientists. The Church simply subscribed to what was the reigning scientific paradigm at the time. And though today it seems obvious that the Earth moves around the sun, back then it seemed just as obvious that the Earth did not move. Empirical evidence that the Earth really did move around the sun didn’t come until the 18th century with the discovery of stellar aberration and later stellar parallax. Galileo’s own “proofs” could either be explained by the Tychonian model (phases of Venus) or were simply wrong (the motion of the tides). So the whole thing about heliocentrism versus geocentrism was not a case of science versus the church.

[AdamSmith]

Actually AdamSmith I am NOT incorrect regarding Galileo and the scientific world of his time. According to www.reasonableanswer.blogspot.com:

 

When it comes to the debate between heliocentrism (the Earth goes around sun) versus geocentrism (the Sun goes around Earth), the Church was not the primary opponent to Galileo and Copernicus. The chief opponents of heliocentrism were the secular Aristotelean scientists. The Church simply subscribed to what was the reigning scientific paradigm at the time. And though today it seems obvious that the Earth moves around the sun, back then it seemed just as obvious that the Earth did not move. Empirical evidence that the Earth really did move around the sun didn’t come until the 18th century with the discovery of stellar aberration and later stellar parallax. Galileo’s own “proofs” could either be explained by the Tychonian model (phases of Venus) or were simply wrong (the motion of the tides). So the whole thing about heliocentrism versus geocentrism was not a case of science versus the church.

...In the Christian world prior to Galileo's conflict with the Church, the majority of educated people subscribed either to the Aristotelian geocentric view that the earth was the center of the universe and that all heavenly bodies revolved around the Earth,[63] or the Tychonic system that blended geocentrism with heliocentrism.[64] Nevertheless, following the death of Copernicus and before Galileo, heliocentrism was relatively uncontroversial;[64]Copernicus's work was used by Pope Gregory XIII to reform the calendar in 1582.[65]

 

Opposition to heliocentrism and Galileo's writings combined religious and scientific objections and were fueled by political events. Scientific opposition came from Tycho Braheand others, and arose from the fact that, if heliocentrism were true, an annual stellar parallax should be observed, though none was. Copernicus had correctly postulated that parallax was negligible because the stars were so distant. However, Brahe had countered that, since stars appeared to have measurable size, if the stars were that distant, they would be gigantic, and in fact far larger than the Sun or any other celestial body. In Brahe's system, by contrast, the stars were a little more distant than Saturn, and the Sun and stars were comparable in size.[66]...

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

 

@Epigonos, your statements here are so broad and unanchored to either evidence or reason as to be indiscussible, thus irrefutable.

[Epigonos]

@Epigonos, your statements here are so broad and unanchored to either evidence or reason as to be indiscussible, thus irrefutable.

Should I then assume that your statements here are so narrow and anchored to provide evidence and reason as to be discussible, thus refutable. VERY INTERESTING!

[AdamSmith]

Should I then assume that your statements here are so narrow and anchored to provide evidence and reason as to be discussible, thus refutable. VERY INTERESTING!

Your abnegation, as a retired educator, of the foundational principles of scientific method speak very directly to those principles first realized by Freud.

[Epigonos]

I must say AdamSmith I am absolutely dazzled by your erudition. I actually had to look up the word abnegation.

[+ Eric Hassan]

Reality is enough people agreeing with the same opinion.

 

Issuing an opinion on the status of someone else's opinion is insane. That making something out of nothing and it isn't even a good something. It's an exercise in pointlessness to try and figure out whether or not you are entitled to an opinion. I still love you, @mike carey.

 

Arguing about how it all went down misses the point that at one time, there was a widespread agreement that the world is flat. Imagine what else we think is true.

 

Oh, and the reason why people get offended at another's opinion? Because it challenges the agreements you've made that create your reality.

[mike carey]

Issuing an opinion on the status of someone else's opinion is insane. That making something out of nothing and it isn't even a good something. It's an exercise in pointlessness to try and figure out whether or not you are entitled to an opinion. I still love you, @mike carey.

Dueling opinions at 30 paces is pointless. My main take away was that this was a warning to his audience against hubris on their opinions, not advocacy of challenging others for 'entitled' opinions. (Phew, I'm not being blocked then, @Eric Hassan?)

[AdamSmith]

My point was really just to raise, amid these Trump-crazed days, a little flag for (a) evidence and (b) reason.

[Epigonos]

I have only attempted to point out that many of yesterday's scientific hersey's have turned out to be today's scientific facts. Thus there is no reason to believe this type of occurrence will not happen again, and therefore all opinions deserve consideration.

[AdamSmith]

I have only attempted to point out that many of yesterday's scientific hersey's have turned out to be today's scientific facts. Thus there is no reason to believe this type of occurrence will not happen again, and therefore all opinions deserve consideration.

Enjoying those margaritas at 30,000 feet,

are we?

[Epigonos]

I have been upgraded to business class and as my flight leaves at 9 am I think I'll switch to Bloody Marys on the flight down.

[AdamSmith]

I have been upgraded to business class and as my flight leaves at 9 am I think I'll switch to Bloody Marys on the flight down.

http://esq.h-cdn.co/assets/15/21/320x160/landscape-1432309020-gettyimages-525392917.jpg

Good move.

[+ deej]

Reality is enough people agreeing with the same opinion.

 

Or, as Lily Tomlin said, reality is just a collective hunch.

[Guy Fawkes]

I obviously disagree with his opinion because he's not entitled to one.

There are different types of opinion, some are just about personal preferences, others reflect one's views on various subjects. It's several years ago that this was written, and it uses Australian examples to illustrate its point, but a useful article in these troubled times. And a spoiler, the article is saying that you are not entitled to your opinion, not that you are not permitted to have one.

https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twitterbutton

[+ sync]

"When I want your opinion, I'll give it to you!"