Is Everyone's Opinion Equally Valid Nowadays?

[Hypognosis]

I was reading this thread
http://www.theanswerbank.co.uk/Science/Question1312845.html

And saw atalanta's reply at the foot of page 1. I was going to write a response (into that thread) along the lines that querying a person's academic credentials was a standard way of killing a debate which isn't going your way. A variation on "if you can't beat their argument with facts or an improved hypothesis, then attack their character" (otherwise known as ad hominem).

She makes a perfectly valid point but it would take all the fun out of discussing interesting things on Answerbank and other internet places. We can't all be published authors or professors or -truly- expert at one of the myriad of technical subjects out there, there just aren't that many job slots available.

Then I came across this article, which basically has a go at the idea that "everyone's opinion is equally valid", which is the principle behind the rise of the armchair experts of the world.

http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/

Bring back experts?
Or let everybody have a go, on an equal footing?
Or somewhere inbetween?

[naomi24]

Everyone’s opinion isn’t equally valid, but that’s not to say that the opinions of those without the appropriate qualification are automatically invalid. A qualification is simply confirmation that a student has attained a particular level of study in a particular subject – not that he/she is necessarily smarter or more knowledgeable than others who have a deep interest the same subject. I’d love to have seen someone tell Sir Patrick Moore, who had no qualifications whatsoever in astronomy, that his opinions were invalid.

[Zacs-Master]

I think the internet has a lot to do with 'armchair experts'. It just too easy to google information which can be misinterpreted / taken out of context. As the syaing goes say, a little knowledge is (or can be) a dangerous thing.

[jim360]

Indeed not -- it's just a balance of probability claim. Arguments should be taken on their merits, not by who gives them. Still, it's true in general that those who have studied a subject beyond the "popular level" know rather a lot more about it than those who haven't.

[ToraToraTora]

No, everyone is entitled to their opinion but that does not mean they all have equal validity.

[Old_Geezer]

Everyone's opinion should be given consideration, except possibly where the person stating their view has shown to be unworthy of consideration from past discussions. But I think it should be clear when someone is in a position to give expert opinin and when they are speaking from a layman's point of view. Concern only arises when someone posts something and implies they know because it's their field of knowledge, when in fact it is just nothing of the sort.

[naomi24]

Hypognosis, //…. it would take all the fun out of discussing interesting things on Answerbank and other internet places.//

An assumption that the opinion of the formally qualified is more valid than any other does exactly that. There is a post on that science thread that has killed any further input from one intelligent contributor stone dead – and that’s a shame. The demands of science, in effect, cause it to be intellectually restrictive and so you might say that scientists are very often blinded by science – but that’s only my opinion. ;o)

[andy-hughes]

No, everyone's opinion is not necessarily valid - it does depend on any direct knowledge and / or experience of the subject being disucssed.

That is not the same as saying that not everyone should have a right to express an opinion - clearly they should, however ill-infomed that may be - but the need to be informed varies as massively as does the perceived qualification for an opinion.

Let me give you an example - I have an opinion on the taste of strawberries, but it is no more or les valid than anyone else's because only opinion is involved, there is no factual evidence to agree or disagree with my thoughts, or anyone else's.

However - take something like premenstrual tension - I have an opinion on it, but it mist take second place to any woman posting on here who has experienced the phenomenon - something I am unable to do, so her direct experience trumps my opinion, however informed it may be - every time.

But a lot of the debates on here concern moral and ethical issues, and in those, everyone's opinion can be seen to be valid, because we are debating a concept not backed up by proven facts.

So, in short, opinions are like aresholes, everybody's got one, but the validity of any opinion is a moveable feast - which is what makes the AB a great reflection of the wider world.

[jomifl]

/The demands of science, in effect, cause it to be intellectually restrictive/
Using rationality does of necessity require the rejection of irrationality and pure daftness :o)

[jake-the-peg]

Of course we are focussing on the easy category - where there is a clear criteria for judging the ultimate rightness or wrongness of a question.

However some questions are based not in the observable world but values

What if the question is about ethics or art say?

If I have an opinion about assisted suicide that whilst internally consistant is at odds with those of a distinguished moral philosopher or even a whole pack of them - does that make me wrong?

[naomi24]

jom, I’m not talking about irrationality and pure daftness. I gave an example on another thread of the way in which science restricts the intellect by citing the accurate findings of Kristian Birkeland with regard to the aurora borealis which were dismissed for over 60 years by mainstream science because ‘it' knew it already knew better - but it didn't.

[mibn2cweus]

In my book, an expert is someone who has the ability to explain, to relate a subject and build a mutual understanding based on mutual experience, in other words, someone who is capable of sharing knowledge with those who recognise the value of knowledge and possess a mutual understanding and respect for what it means to know, apart from which no genuine understanding is possible.

[brionon]

I remember a sneering Expert telling us that,although the common folk think that a Panda is a Bear,it's actually a sort of Weasel.Only to hear,some years later that, Of course the Panda is a Bear despite the ordinary people's misconception !

[LazyGun]

"citing the accurate findings of Kristian Birkeland with regard to the aurora borealis which were dismissed for over 60 years by mainstream science because ‘it' knew it already knew better - but it didn't"

Sometimes changing the established paradigm takes time. Politics will always play a part, as does personal reputations,fame, funding and entrenched thinking, but sometimes it might be just because it is not possible to provide sufficient evidence to support a particular hypothesis at that time. The technology might not be there at that specific moment in time to measure/observe the evidence.Changing the paradigm requires backing up an opinion/theory/hypothesis with observation and evidence, testable predictions and studies.

Do you know why his ideas were dismissed at the time? And what was it that eventually changed the consensus view? I am guessing that it was additional evidence and observation - the scientific method,in other words - and eventually a new consensus coalesces around the new way of thinking and the old ideology is discarded. Happens all the time in Science.

We can all find examples of "maverick thinkers" bucking the establishment and later being vindicated - but that does not mean that all fringe thinkers are necessarily going to be proven right or that the consensus is always going to be wrong.

Oh, and which post/thread were you referring to when you posted this, Naomi, out of curiousity?

"An assumption that the opinion of the formally qualified is more valid than any other does exactly that. There is a post on that science thread that has killed any further input from one intelligent contributor stone dead – and that’s a shame."

[jim360]

Yes, I saw the Birkeland example, and it's not the only one you can find. Now comes an interesting question of exactly what the right attitude to take to new ideas is. Really, Birkeland's ideas turned out to be correct but also were in contradiction to the established theories of the time -- theories which had been checked against experiments and found to be valid, up to a point. In that case, although one needs to check the literature exactly to be sure, it's likely that the theory wasn't so much rejected out of hand as rejected by normal scientific considerations. This turned out, later, to be a mistake. But two things are noteworthy. Firstly, the idea was revived later so it wasn't ignored completely. Secondly, most ideas that are rejected based on Scientific considerations turn out to deserve rejection and are never resurrected.

Is it wrong, really, to make the following statement: "On the available evidence, this theory appears to be wrong"? I think this reflects what happened with respect to Birkeland's theory, rather than something more sinister. It is to Science's credit that, when the evidence changed, so did the picture.

[heathfield]

I can't help thinking of 'old wives tales' which, with advances in science, 'experts' are able to investigate and find to be factual.

[jim360]

And, equally, plenty of other old wives' tales which turned out to be wrong. The thing is that often there are many more examples of the "folklore turns out to be wrong", than the opposite -- but some people draw attention to the rarer cases where an old idea turns out to be genuine, or an idea was rejected and then rehabilitated, and make these appear to be the rule rather than the exception.

[pixie373]

I think both are equally important. Formal education is useful for seeing what other people think, but everybody can think for themselves. Experience is often more helpful than qualifications. Facts are not opinions, anyway. If something is right, it is right. Opinions are subjective- so all equally valid.

[naomi24]

LazyGun, //Happens all the time in Science.//


Yes it does – and that’s precisely why, without positive proof, the opinions of science aren’t automatically more valid than others.

jim, I know you saw the Birkeland example - you responded to it. It was on the same thread where you said you thought Einstein was wrong – and here we are talking about who is and who isn’t qualified to hold an opinion. Just a thought. ;o)

[pixie373]

Oxford English Dictionary-
//noun

view or judgement formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge //

[jno]

red pandas are related to weasels

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_panda