No, you are not entitled to your opinion

[TitanTiger 20,465]

This issue has come up recently, but has been used frequently in these forums.  The phrase "it's my opinion" gets tossed into a discussion as if that ends it.  That simply is not the case, at least not with all opinions.  I'll let this professor explain the distinctions in the first part of his article so that people here, no matter what thread they happen to be participating in, can better understand when an opinion has to be supported and when it does not and expectations can be set accordingly.

 

Quote

 

No, you’re not entitled to your opinion

Patrick Stokes October 4, 2012 4.28pm EDT

Every year, I try to do at least two things with my students at least once. First, I make a point of addressing them as “philosophers” – a bit cheesy, but hopefully it encourages active learning.

Secondly, I say something like this: “I’m sure you’ve heard the expression ‘everyone is entitled to their opinion.’ Perhaps you’ve even said it yourself, maybe to head off an argument or bring one to a close. Well, as soon as you walk into this room, it’s no longer true. You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.”

A bit harsh? Perhaps, but philosophy teachers owe it to our students to teach them how to construct and defend an argument – and to recognize when a belief has become indefensible.

The problem with “I’m entitled to my opinion” is that, all too often, it’s used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for “I can say or think whatever I like” – and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful. And this attitude feeds, I suggest, into the false equivalence between experts and non-experts that is an increasingly pernicious feature of our public discourse.

Firstly, what’s an opinion?

Plato 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.

You can’t really argue about the first kind of opinion. I’d be silly to insist that you’re wrong to think strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate. The problem is that sometimes we implicitly seem to take opinions of the second and even the third sort to be unarguable in the way questions of taste are...

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

 

 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

 That'

12 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

This issue has come up recently, but has been used frequently in these forums.  The phrase "it's my opinion" gets tossed into a discussion as if that ends it.  That simply is not the case, at least not with all opinions.  I'll let this professor explain the distinctions in the first part of his article so that people here, no matter what thread they happen to be participating in, can better understand when an opinion has to be supported and when it does not and expectations can be set accordingly.

 

 

So there are exceptions and you as the forum mod get to decide? That's fine, all I would ask is you enforce it impartially with everyone.

[TitanTiger 20,465]

6 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

So there are exceptions and you as the forum mod get to decide?

There are exceptions and there are generally agreed upon criteria used to decide.  Allow me to requote the relevant portion that explains this:

Quote

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.

You can’t really argue about the first kind of opinion. I’d be silly to insist that you’re wrong to think strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate. The problem is that sometimes we implicitly seem to take opinions of the second and even the third sort to be unarguable in the way questions of taste are.

Opinions that are simply matters of taste cannot really be argued and no evidence would be expected to bolster such an opinion.  But in areas that are not merely matters of taste, then one can reasonably be expected to have supporting evidence for their opinion.  Hope this helps.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

There are exceptions and there are generally agreed upon criteria used to decide.  Allow me to requote the relevant portion that explains this:

Opinions that are simply matters of taste cannot really be argued and no evidence would be expected to bolster such an opinion.  But in areas that are not merely matters of taste, then one can reasonably be expected to have supporting evidence for their opinion.  Hope this helps.

That leaves the door wide open to interpretation. Even the stuff by Prof. Stokes is an opinion. Webster doesn't help much . If I were you I would simply allow posters to state an opinion and agree or disagree without making it a federal case.

[TitanTiger 20,465]

3 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

That leaves the door wide open to interpretation. Even the stuff by Prof. Stokes is an opinion. Webster doesn't help much . If I were you I would simply allow posters to state an opinion and agree or disagree without making it a federal case.

Well, you aren't me and it's really not that hard to tell the difference.  I get tired of the lazy s*** that passes for political discussion around here, so when I see obvious examples where I can point out where it needs to improve, I will say so.  I've told you this before when you pull out the My Opinion Card, but this just explains it in more detail.  

For the record, I simply asked for some supporting evidence for an assertion that was made.  That's not making a federal case out of it.

[johnnyAU 3,630]

I think this premise is completely bogus. Everyone has opinions and should be free to express to those opinions, even at the risk of their own demise. Whether or not you share someone's opinion or basis for their opinion is absolutely irrelevant.  Those expressing their opinions should indeed realize the consequences of expressing those opinions should they be discovered falsely begotten.  That's the experience of learning to keep your mouth shut if you don't fully understand the subject.  The latter idea seems to have gotten lost in the vast cloak of anonymity of the great "commentosphere". 

Stating opinions as fact are a completely different matter, and should be backed up by some sort of evidence as such. The questions then become more about the validation of the sources, which is becoming increasingly difficult these days. 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

56 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

I think this premise is completely bogus. Everyone has opinions and should be free to express to those opinions, even at the risk of their own demise. Whether or not you share someone's opinion or basis for their opinion is absolutely irrelevant.  Those expressing their opinions should indeed realize the consequences of expressing those opinions should they be discovered falsely begotten.  That's the experience of learning to keep your mouth shut if you don't fully understand the subject.  The latter idea seems to have gotten lost in the vast cloak of anonymity of the great "commentosphere". 

Stating opinions as fact are a completely different matter, and should be backed up by some sort of evidence as such. The questions then become more about the validation of the sources, which is becoming increasingly difficult these days. 

I fully agree.

[TitanTiger 20,465]

57 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

I think this premise is completely bogus. Everyone has opinions and should be free to express to those opinions, even at the risk of their own demise. Whether or not you share someone's opinion or basis for their opinion is absolutely irrelevant.  Those expressing their opinions should indeed realize the consequences of expressing those opinions should they be discovered falsely begotten.  That's the experience of learning to keep your mouth shut if you don't fully understand the subject.  The latter idea seems to have gotten lost in the vast cloak of anonymity of the great "commentosphere". 

Stating opinions as fact are a completely different matter, and should be backed up by some sort of evidence as such. The questions then become more about the validation of the sources, which is becoming increasingly difficult these days. 

I think you need to reread what was said.  You are free to express your opinion, and no one suggested otherwise.  But unless it's merely a matter of taste (like preferring strawberry ice cream over chocolate), then you still have to be able to provide supporting evidence for those opinions.  Saying "it's my opinion" isn't a magic wand that ends all rebuttal and puts all statements on equal footing, just as valid as any other statement.  

Welcome to the world of more serious debate.  No one in any serious field who discusses weightier subjects than what the best sitcom in TV history was accepts statements of opinion as being immune to needing supporting evidence or examples.

 

[alexava 6,972]

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

I think you need to reread what was said.  You are free to express your opinion, and no one suggested otherwise.  But unless it's merely a matter of taste (like preferring strawberry ice cream over chocolate), then you still have to be able to provide supporting evidence for those opinions.  Saying "it's my opinion" isn't a magic wand that ends all rebuttal and puts all statements on equal footing, just as valid as any other statement.  

Welcome to the world of more serious debate.  No one in any serious field who discusses weightier subjects than what the best sitcom in TV history was accepts statements of opinion as being immune to needing supporting evidence or examples.

 

I had a coworker who is extremely belligerent use that. Told me I couldn’t argue because “ that’s my  opinion. You can’t argue opinions.” I told him that’s all you can argue is opinions, you can’t argue facts, they’re facts. He wasn’t liking how certain facts sheyt  on his opinions.  

[johnnyAU 3,630]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

But unless it's merely a matter of taste (like preferring strawberry ice cream over chocolate), then you still have to be able to provide supporting evidence for those opinions.

No, you do not. It's an opinion. Opinions are based on many things, including feelings, intuitions, experiences,  memories, tastes, logical conclusions, perceptions,  interpretations, etc...as well as just data and scientific evidence. Opinions are useful in many varieties and situations. It doesn't necessarily imply rightness or wrongness, but in some cases can effect a change in paradigm, or direction.  Diversity of opinion is an important learning tool for all of us. 

Dr. Jordan Peterson has a bit of advice: paraphrased..."Assume the person you are speaking to knows something you do not. Try and find out what that is."

If you state opinion as a fact, then you provide evidence. Then you can argue the validity of the evidence. It's a different animal. 

[TitanTiger 20,465]

5 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

No, you do not. It's an opinion. Opinions are based on many things, including feelings, intuitions, experiences,  memories, tastes, logical conclusions, perceptions,  interpretations, etc...as well as just data and scientific evidence. Opinions are useful in many varieties and situations. It doesn't necessarily imply rightness or wrongness, but in some cases can effect a change in paradigm, or direction.  Diversity of opinion is an important learning tool for all of us. 

Of course we can learn.  Providing supporting evidence for one's opinions hardly prevents learning - in fact it fosters it.  But to just flatly state that something is your opinion and give nothing to back it up isn't sufficient outside of matters of taste.  Sorry.

 

5 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Dr. Jordan Peterson has a bit of advice: paraphrased..."Assume the person you are speaking to knows something you do not. Try and find out what that is."

If you state opinion as a fact, then you provide evidence. Then you can argue the validity of the evidence. It's a different animal. 

Factual claims are not the only ones that need evidence.  For instance, if I state that in my opinion, the Republican Party is racist, that statement cannot stand on its own.  At least not and be taken seriously.  It's not a matter of taste or preference.  And people would rightly dismiss such lightweight nonsense.  If I'm going to make such a statement, even if it's my opinion, then I must offer support for it - show examples, statements that Republicans have made, actions they have taken, policies they have supported, polling data, whatever.  Now I may not ultimately convince you that the GOP is actually racist in the end, but simply making the declaration does not hold water.  Not here, not anywhere.

 

[johnnyAU 3,630]

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

 For instance, if I state that in my opinion, the Republican Party is racist, that statement cannot stand on its own.

No, that opinion is ridiculous, but it may be your opinion. You do not have to state evidence, nor your reasons for it. It is your own opinion, no matter how bizarre it may seem. 

Many political arguments are very well steeped in ideology/opinion (as are many religious arguments), regardless of whether or not they stand up to scrutiny. Heck, there are many scientific arguments based on theory that can't be validated by experiment. It will then boil down to whether you believe the theory or not. 

7 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

show examples, statements that Republicans have made, actions they have taken, policies they have supported, polling data,

And those are all open to interpretation and opinion, swayed of course by many things, including political bias. 

[TitanTiger 20,465]

I could cite numerous examples of this.  Again we're discussing opinions being offered on serious subjects, not just fellas shooting the breeze and arguing who the best NFL team of all time was.

Quote

 

In order to have academic credibility, opinions need to be supported by reliable evidence in academic texts. ‘Reliable’ means the kind of evidence that most readers would accept as valid. The aim of the next activity is to identify how opinions are supported by evidence in the text.

https://www.open.edu/openlearn/languages/english-language/how-be-critical-reader/content-section-1.6

 

 

Quote

 

This means giving your opinions (positive and negative) on the work of others and your own opinions based on what you have read and learned. You need to evaluate arguments, weigh evidence and develop a set of standards on which to base your conclusion.

As always in academic writing, all your opinions must be supported - you should produce your evidence and explain why this evidence supports your point of view. 

http://www.uefap.com/writing/function/argue.htm

 

 

Quote

 

An opinion is a judgment based on facts, an honest attempt to draw a reasonable conclusion from factual evidence. (For example, we know that millions of people go without proper medical care, and so you form the opinion that the country should institute national health insurance even though it would cost billions of dollars.) An opinion is potentially changeable--depending on how the evidence is interpreted. By themselves, opinions have little power to convince. You must always let your reader know what your evidence is and how it led you to arrive at your opinion.

https://writing.colostate.edu/guides/teaching/co300man/pop12d.cfm

 

 

Quote

 

Different people may draw opposing conclusions (opinions) even if they agree on the same set of facts. Opinions rarely change without new arguments being presented. It can be reasoned that one opinion is better supported by the facts than another, by analyzing the supporting arguments.^[1]

^{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion}

 

 

[TitanTiger 20,465]

8 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

No, that opinion is ridiculous, but it may be your opinion. You do not have to state evidence, nor your reasons for it. It is your own opinion, no matter how bizarre it may seem. 

Let me see if this helps.  You can say and believe any crazy s*** you want.  But if you want your opinions to be taken seriously, especially around here, then you must have some supporting evidence to back them up.  Otherwise, we consign you to the smack forum and ignore you, or eventually tire of your shenanigans and ban you from the politics forum altogether.  

Simply saying something and declaring "It's my opinion" will not suffice.  It is not a trump card (no pun intended) that absolves you from supporting your contentions or shields you from critique.

 

 

[NolaAuTiger 3,294]

1 hour ago, johnnyAU said:

No, that opinion is ridiculous, but it may be your opinion. You do not have to state evidence, nor your reasons for it. It is your own opinion, no matter how bizarre it may seem. 

Many political arguments are very well steeped in ideology/opinion (as are many religious arguments), regardless of whether or not they stand up to scrutiny. Heck, there are many scientific arguments based on theory that can't be validated by experiment. It will then boil down to whether you believe the theory or not. 

And those are all open to interpretation and opinion, swayed of course by many things, including political bias. 

You are spot on and correct in this exchange. 

[NolaAuTiger 3,294]

2 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Factual claims are not the only ones that need evidence.  For instance, if I state that in my opinion, the Republican Party is racist, that statement cannot stand on its own.  At least not and be taken seriously.  It's not a matter of taste or preference.  And people would rightly dismiss such lightweight nonsense.  If I'm going to make such a statement, even if it's my opinion, then I must offer support for it - show examples, statements that Republicans have made, actions they have taken, policies they have supported, polling data, whatever.  

 

It seems then, evidence is only needed if you want the listener to take the opinion (the Republican Party is racist) seriously. Am I misled in that inference?

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Let me see if this helps.  You can say and believe any crazy s*** you want.  But if you want your opinions to be taken seriously, especially around here, then you must have some supporting evidence to back them up.  

Not sure I follow you here.

What if the person asserting the opinion quite frankly doesn’t care whether or not others with differing views take the opinion “seriously”? Is the person making the assertion still obligated to provide cold hard evidence? If so, then doesn’t that make your initial statement (the latter portion) superfluous?

As you say above, people can hold whatever opinions they want, but if you want your opinion to be taken seriously... you must provide evidence. What does that mean for the person who expresses an opinion (say, in the smack talk forum) not for the purpose of assisting a skeptic’s acceptance of the opinion, or assisting the skeptic in taking the opinion seriously? Do they still have to provide evidence? Which party decides whether or not the speaker intends that others take the opinion seriously - the speaker or the audience?

1 hour ago, TitanTiger said:

Otherwise, we consign you to the smack forum 

Why though? Isn’t the same required in that forum as well, as the record reflects from today?

 

If these are the rules, fairness dictates an unequivocal explanation for all. Public discourse for all to see re this matter is good.

[Texan4Auburn 1,626]

Far as this forum this stuff is a joke. It gets enforced or called out based on who you are.

I got policed multiple times by an individual in the past couple weeks because of who I was (I'm not super cool with the lefty clique here now, might be again in 2020). If I was someone else those things would have been let to slide. They in fact were allowed to slide if they were in said clique.

Lol, the entire reason I suggested the mail-bomber might not be affiliated with either was cause of the Austin bomber. His original profile lined up as a right wing extremist targeting minorities in a liberal city. Then he hit a white area with trip wires and another. Guess what, they still don't know what his motivation was despite having his video taped confession. So any arguments on what that bomber did are opinion.

It also was a shot at the fact that for some I think the hope of it being a Trump supporter was more important than the lives that were threatened.

Now if this board is gonna start going mod's out then cool. I hope it does require a person to respond with an actual argument and not emoji's and facepalms. I hope it does enforce that you will debate like an adult and start throwing time outs for name calling and attacking the poster and not the post.

Cause if you have ever participated/read a heavily moderated political board you can actually learn stuff or gain a new perspective.

Also to add in. It is funny how when I pointed out that the Austin bomber was not treated like someone else would of been (an opinion) and that he potentially could of been right winged (an opinion) it was all cool. Treat someone else the same and that didn't match the left line-up and I got slammed. Little consistency on these rulings would be nice also.

 

[TitanTiger 20,465]

This was not a thread to announce some new hyper-moderated way of handling the board.  It was simply to inform people that when you're in a thread and you toss out some bold take, you don't get to shove your responsibility to back up what you said on others by saying "my opinion." It was to address a recurring issue in debates we have here and explain why saying something is your opinion sometimes isn't enough. Simple as that.

[johnnyAU 3,630]

Using the phrase, IMO, is either an admission that you are not in fact an expert on the subject, (which in most cases is just simply being truthful), or is an attempt to end the conversation without further venturing into the reasons behind the opinion, some of which could be personal in nature. The problem is that it frustrates people who are in the discussion to try and achieve some sort of victory, whether or not they themselves are correct.  Respecting others' opinions without needing to drill down to the core of why they believe what they do perhaps is an acquired taste. I'd much prefer leaving it at IMO, over the alternative, which many times results with the argumentum ad populum excuse, or ad hominem attacks.

[AUDub 11,131]

This thread is mighty revealing. Gives a good indicator of the quality of argument we can expect from several of our posters.

[johnnyAU 3,630]

5 minutes ago, AUDub said:

This thread is mighty revealing. Gives a good indicator of the quality of argument we can expect from several of our posters.

Of course, that is just your opinion isn't it?

[NolaAuTiger 3,294]

15 minutes ago, AUDub said:

This thread is mighty revealing. Gives a good indicator of the quality of argument we can expect from several of our posters.

When it comes to quality, you really are in no place to chastise others. But thanks for expressing your opinion. I was happy to offer mine in return.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

7 hours ago, Texan4Auburn said:

Far as this forum this stuff is a joke. It gets enforced or called out based on who you are.

I agree. Glad I'm not alone. And I would add I didn't think this was a formal debate room but just a place to have fun slinging some political smack.

[AUDub 11,131]

33 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

Of course, that is just your opinion isn't it?

Yes it is, and in support I offer the prior posts. If we don't agree to argue with some ground rules regarding logical validity and soundness, to put forth premises when presenting a statement that may be open for argument, then this forum is worthless.

Such tactics as "IMO" turn an argument into emotional manipulation rather than logical exercise.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

21 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

When it comes to quality, you really are in no place to chastise others. But thanks for expressing your opinion. I was happy to offer mine in return.

LMAO.  Dud nailed it though because you can sure tell a lot about him from his posts. That's precisely why he is on my ignore list.