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?

[woofgang]

It depends....My opinion as a retired Occupational Therapist, within that field, is more valid than someone's who has never been an OT, but likely less valid than someone who is currently in practice. The validity and knowledge of "armchair experts varies from "it stands to reason dunnit?" to people who have done massive research and study without having any formal qualifications.

Aside from this, on this kind of forum, everybody is entitled (within the rules) to express their opinion regardless of its validity. Its up to the rest of us to adjudge its value!

[snags]

''Its up to the rest of us to adjudge its value! ''

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s156/snagged_01/Opinion_zpse74a3611.jpg

[woofgang]

well sometimes, yes

[DTCwordfan]

This was summed up by JFK - "To often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought."

How so true..........

[woofgang]

DTC, I like that, thank you

[wolf63]

I must admit to having made very little valid and educated contribution to AB. But I am usually good at thinking outside the box in a logical and balanced fashion.

Sometimes what is needed is to see a problem from another angle.

There are many good and educated people on AB - but nobody has ALL the answers.

[belrec]

It does depend on context, to expand a little on woofgang's excellent first post.

If you are having a debate on a social forum like this one then everyone's opinion (within the rules) is valid.

However, if it was a discussion about a surgical operation I was about to have then, of course, the surgeon is emminently more qualified than me, the patient, and family (unless they happen to be surgeons too :-)) and so his (or her) opinion MUST carry more weight.

[FredPuli43]

It's interesting to read the opinion of lay people on matters which lie within one's expertise. For one thing, it gives an idea of what popular misunderstandings there are. Some of these would not exist as strongly as they do but for their being spread or reinforced by tabloids, others seem deeply embedded regardless. Some are downright dangerous, for example the belief that there is such a thing as common law marriage and it is equal to formal marriage, others less so; the law on self-defence is commonly misunderstood to mean that no householder or citizen can do anything.

[China Doll]

Depending on the subject matter, absolutely not!

[LazyGun]

Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not all opinions are equally valid, especially in areas dealing with facts and evidence.

This idea of all opinion being equally valid can have potentially dangerous consequences, especially since broadcasters and the media seem determined to "debate the controversy" wherever possible. So they will frame the "debate" by bringing on an expert in the field, and then offering equal and often unchallenged airtime to some wingnut with an agenda or who thinks vaccination is all some part of a grand conspiracy.

The effects of such an even handed attitude, based around the premise that all opinions are equal can be seen in problems with vaccination rates within populations, for instance.

[China Doll]

I would also argue that opinions based on ignorance and prejudice for example, have absolutely no weight or value to me; the only thing that is important is the fact that you are free to express it. But perhaps that is me being both subjective and mean.

[Hypognosis]

//have done massive research and study without having any formal qualifications. //

Absolutely. Factual books have their bibliography and reference material listed so the self-taught person can follow the trail wherever their curiosity takes them. They might not study in quite as structured a way as someone on a university course but they can/will cover much the same territory and lines of research.

They have the added advantage that graduates are meant to be specialists, so their interest is narrow in scope but deep. The library-user is a free agent and can develop broader tastes. Of necessity more shallow but richer by dint of being multi-disciplinary. They actually stand more chance of being able to make mental connections between previously unconnected ideas. Inventions, in other words.

[KARL]

In the sense that everyone is entitled to their (factually right or wrong) opinion, then the answer has to be yes - but with the proviso that nobody is entitled to spread misinformation in the case of a factually wrong opinion. To me (and I may misunderstand) the context of the reference in the OP to "...killing a debate which isn't going your way..." alludes to resentment over someone perhaps knowing better (i.e. you are wrong). In such cases, the sentiment often referred to as inverted snobbery is not an attractive one.

Not all subjects have the advantage of there existing somewhere factual knowledge relating to them and when such matters are being discussed/debated I would suggest that, without any reservation, everyone's opinion is equally valid (i.e. each to his opinion when it can't be categorically disproved). The most obvious example in which I can think of such a subject is whether there is any such thing as a god (i.e. deity, superior being). Nobody can prove either way and those who believe there are one or more gods has the same right to their opinion as those who believe there definitely is no such thing.

[LazyGun]

"Home for the Holidays (1995)~ "Opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one and everyone thinks everyone else's stinks" :)

[AB Editor]

Everyone's opinion is equal.

It's just that some are more equal than others.

[jake-the-peg]

What a daft idea

Let me put it this way

Heaven forfend but imagine you need brain surgery.

There is an opinion from a professor with 30 years experience in the field

But I've got a different idea, I've watched a few documentries and even seen an actual operation once - and I read a couple of books too!

Who do you want wielding the knife on you? Is my opinion equally valid?


Everybody is entitled to their opinion as they say - but everybody's opinion is not of equal worth!


I particularly love the Global Warming skeptics who start with ' I don't know much about science, but....'

I mean 'I don't know much about brain surgery but...'

[jomifl]

With reference to the thread in Hypo's link I can't help but think that the opinon of a scientist has more relevance to a science question than say a butcher or an airline pilot...for example.

[2sp_]

I do think that everyone's opinion should be treated as valid, it's just that some opinions are base on better reasoning, education and experience.

You just have to sort those out from those that are based on assumed knowledge and random beliefs.

[jim360]

It's a case of how you assess validity of an opinion. In principle an opinion should be taken on its own merits, with no reference to who gave it -- in practice, of course, it's usually a reasonable assumption that the experts know what they are talking about and the laymen know rather a lot less. But there are always exceptions to the rule. The trick is in being able to tell when there's an exception, and when there isn't.

[jomifl]

Anyone's opinion when backed up by reasoning merits consideation. Unsupported opinions are worthy only of cursory consideration, usually.