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?

[sandyRoe]

Only at elections, I'd say.

[LazyGun]

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

Hmm. When you have a body of evidence and observation and testable predictions about a particular hypothesis, then that opinion is far more valid than a fringe theory with no evidence, little observation and no testable predictions.

That is not to say that we should automatically bow to the logical fallacy of the "Argument from Authority", but it does mean that if extra-ordinary claims are being made - ones not supported by evidence - then we should ignore them until some proper evidence and observation is presented.

Which was the thread you were talking about that got closed down?

[naomi24]

LG, if you're asking me, I don't know anything about a thread that got closed down.

[LazyGun]

@ Naomi,

Yes, I was asking you - apologies if that was unclear. It was in reference to this comment of yours, from earlier

""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.""

Which post, which thread, out of curiosity?

[jim360]

Why should everything Einstein said automatically be more right than what I say? Remember that he did almost 60 years ago, so I have the advantage of that on my side. Nor am I always right and he's always wrong. But I still feel that I'm able to understand some of his ideas and arguments with greater clarity than most, and so that means I am in a position to disagree with him when I feel it's appropriate.

I would certainly not be surprised if you took his word over mine most of the time -- while at least in part that would be the fallacy of Appeal to Authority as LG has mentioned, it also would fall in line with some of the rest of my argument that it's usually a safe bet to trust the experts -- and Einstein's certainly one of them!

[jomifl]

Jim, I wouldn't give his opinions on tropical diseases a lot of weight :o)

[naomi24]

LG, the link to the thread posted in the OP.

Jim, You’ve just met yourself coming back.

[LazyGun]

@ Naomi, Ahh, thanks. I thought you were referring to a thread in Science on AB that I had missed ;)

[jim360]

Yes, I suppose it does look like that rather, but there is more to it than that. In the first place, there are a number of things that Einstein got wrong anyway, including about his own work. Recognising this isn't exactly a revelation. IN the second place, once again I talk about "usually" the experts know what they are talking about. It doesn't follow that they always do, and it doesn't follow therefore that any time I disagree with the (usually long-dead) ones on a particular point I've contradicted myself. Merely that it's an exception to the "usually" I just said earlier.

So no, I haven't met myself coming back.

[naomi24]

Jim,// it doesn't follow therefore that any time I disagree with the (usually long-dead) ones on a particular point I've contradicted myself.//

It doesn’t follow that you’re right either. If you can’t see where you, being an expert, but not I would venture to suggest quite as expert as Einstein, met yourself coming back, try again.

[pixie373]

Studies are not the same as opinions. You don't have to agree with something to learn about it.