I once had an indignant student tell me that what I was teaching in class about evolution was “just my opinion” and that they had a different opinion, and therefore they were justified in rejecting a major chunk of the class subject matter. I think I just gave them the standard line — you are allowed to believe what you want, but in this class, you have to demonstrate an understanding of the science, even if you disagree with it — but over the years, I’ve evolved towards a somewhat harder stance. You don’t get to declare whatever you dislike to be an opinion. You don’t get to regard your opinions as somehow sacrosanct. I am going to give you the information that shows your opinion is wrong, and the purpose of my teaching is to get you to change your opinions to something more productive and correct, and more in line with reality. Those kinds of opinions should not survive an encounter with the facts.
So I’m already in agreement with this philosophical position that “No, you’re not entitled to your opinion”. There are different kinds of opinions, and this is a very useful explanation.
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. Perhaps that’s one reason (no doubt there are others) why enthusiastic amateurs think they’re entitled to disagree with climate scientists and immunologists and have their views “respected.”
I have to agree. The statements “I like chocolate ice cream” and “I think the earth is 6000 years old” are both opinions all right, in a shallow and colloquial sense, but they are qualitatively different. That I respect your right to have your own taste in ice cream should not imply that I also grant you the privilege to ignore our shared reality. The author, Patrick Stokes, explains all this with examples from anti-vaxxers and climate change deniers, but it’s true for lots of phenomena.
It’s the core of the Answers in Genesis claim that they are using the same facts, but different views (they prefer to use the word “worldviews” over “opinions”, but it’s the same thing). They think they’re entitled to their own opinions and interpretations of reality, and that they can look at a Cretaceous fossil and declare that, in their opinion, that dinosaur died in the Great Flood in 2304BC…they certainly have the right to say that, but they go further and demand that you respect that opinion as equally valid to that of a scientist.
We also see it in politics. Look at this claim by Scottie Nell Hughes:
“On one hand, I hear half the media saying that these are lies. But on the other half, there are many people that go ‘No it’s true,’” Hughes said. “And so one thing that has been interesting this entire campaign season to watch, is that people who say ‘facts are facts,’— they’re not really facts.”
“Everybody has a way—It’s kind of like looking at ratings, or looking at a glass of half-full water. Everybody has a way of interpreting them to be the truth or not true. There’s no such thing, unfortunately, anymore, as facts,” she added.
I’m pretty sure Hughes would argue that the facts show that she is a mammalian humanoid, with records to show that she was born to fully human parents, but it is my opinion that she, and all the other Trump surrogates, are actually alien reptoids who hatched from eggs incubated in a dungheap. And apparently, she’d agree that her facts are useless and my interpretation is perfectly valid.
Unless, of course, we can agree that some opinions are falsifiable.
I grappled with this a bit in grad school. Being a mathematician, whose philosophy (or set theory at least) is automatically “naive,” I came to a satisfying couple of postulates:
* The universe that we sense exists.
* Most of it is unknown, or even unknowable, but any particular bit of it can be known better by increased scrutiny.
* Improved observations will disagree less and less. (I.e., they form a Cauchy sequence.)
* Observations by independent observers will converge to the same answer, modulo reconcilable differences in terminology.
This mattered to me because it’s fundamentally unknowable whether, say, my perception of “red” is at all similar to your perception of it. But we can agree which things are red, once we’ve addressed terminology issues like pink and maroon. And we can even convince a color-blind person that “red” and “green” are real phenomena, despite his never being able to perceive this directly. (For example, we can give him “red” and “green” paint, and tell him to write words in red-on-green and green-on-red, and prove that we can read them.)
So my beef with AiG and their ilk isn’t so much that they have an opinion — even a ridiculous one — but that they refuse to subject that opinion to refined scrutiny. Consider all the counter-arguments about the geological column, comparative anatomy, etc., and observe that all of them represent refined details that the creationist willfully ignores.
It’s perfectly true that two nearsighted people might disagree whether that animal over there is a horse or a cow — but when one of them refuses to put their glasses on or walk closer for a better view, that person’s opinion is valueless.
(Apologies for the rant. I’ve spent enormous energy trying to get fundie friends and relations to “walk over for a better view,” and the refusal to do so is so glaring that it drives me buggy.)
Waste of a good dungheap.
Just routine hypocrisy on their part, I suppose, when some Trump surrogate throws out this ad populum BS and then can turn right around and dismiss losing the popular vote. That is, when they’re not making up more ad populum BS to try to explain it away.
Habermas discusses this in depth in The Theory of Communicative Action. It’s very dense reading, but important epistemology. He frames it in terms of speech acts, in this case assertions, which he classifies according to three categories of “criticizable validity claims.” The “First World” is truth — intersubjective reality, the world “out there.” It can be further divided into what we can immediately apprehend — the sun is shining — and what we know through deduction — life on earth evolved over billions of years. The second world is the world of morality and social norms. It is meaningful to discuss whether Ronald T. Dump will legitimately become president, but people might differ about it. The Third World is that which is pleasant of painful to us, for which I could use the same example.
The problem is that the vernacular word “opinion” doesn’t make these distinctions. I have people code speech acts in my own research, and I find it often a bit difficult to get this across. It’s an interesting example of how language can shape thinking, for better or for worse.
I get this “every viewpoint is just an opinion” thing all the time — or, rather, every time uncomfortable facts intrude on what somebody has a personal reason to believe. I once presented a friend who was considering buying into one of those ionized water scams with an article written by a chemistry teacher. The people marketing the machine had been foolish enough to put a clear explanation of “how it works” on their website — and the chemist absolutely ripped it apart as complete babble. But this was “an opinion.” Chemistry was also “an opinion.” It didn’t accept homeopathy either, so it was flawed.
It seems to me that this idea that everybody’s truth is just as good as anybody else’s is grounded in two very different rationales. The first is a distorted idea of what it means to “respect” people who are different from you. The second has to do with a love affair with “faith” and the way it dignifies what you know, but cannot prove. And of course, there’s no reason one cannot use both.
The truth matters and it should.
We found that out in Iraq. A war based on a lie about weapons of mass destruction. Over 100,000 dead, $2 trillion dollars gone, and accomplishing nothing.
We will find it out with global warming. The seas will rise and the climate change.
Reality doesn’t care what you believe.
This is BTW, postmodernism. A discredited philosophy.
There’s a quote by Harlan Ellison that I absolutely love:
> You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.
Reminds me of my step-grandmother, Marge (aka Eva Braun), who believed, religiously, in the non-falsifiability of any opinion, no matter how obviously contradicted by observable reality. I don’t speak with that side of the family anymore.
Also, that’s not really fair to the dung heap. But I guess something has to sacrifice its reputation for the metaphor.
Fine, since nobody else has said it yet:
Well, that’s your opinion :-)
But yes, there is a difference between a subjective opinion and an objective truth. I am free to consider the works of Picasso to be utter crap, but I cannot consider them to be worthless. Any auction will prove me wrong.
I hope you got a good belly laugh out of your student’s assertion, PZ.
namedropping Big Lebowski:
———————————————————-
my opinion (obviously): blame it Drumph the POS-elect. He tweets lies asserted as phakts (his spelling), his handlers will rationalize as ‘he tweeted his opinion, ayup just as good as your facts you media mongrill’.
And saying (writing) that I gots to take my own neo-advise. All assertions should be written with the closing punctuation mark of question mark? [see what I did there] and drop the ubiquitous exclamation point ! oops ,rather: Drop the ubiquitous eclamation point ?
IMOpinion baduum.
namedropping Big Lebowski:
———————————————————-
my opinion (obviously): blame it Drumph the POS-elect. He tweets lies asserted as phakts (his spelling), his handlers will rationalize as ‘he tweeted his opinion, ayup just as good as your facts you media mongrill’.
And saying (writing) that I gots to take my own neo-advise. All assertions should be written with the closing punctuation mark of question mark? [see what I did there] and drop the ubiquitous exclamation point ! oops ,rather: Drop the ubiquitous eclamation point ?
IMOpinion baduum.
I’m old enough to remember the days – 1990’s, give or take – when postmodernism was a bit of a movement in academia, and conservatives (rightfully) pointed out that this movement was nonsense because facts matter.
Now that academics have (mostly) come to their senses and postmodernism has migrated to the right we’re in much bigger trouble, because it isn’t just a handful of fringe conservatives who have embraced this nonsense: it’s the friggin’ PEOTUS and his entire staff.
“If all we get from this Administration is incompetence and graft then we’ll have gotten off easy.” – John Scalzi, last week.
namedropping Big Lebowski:
———————————————————-
my opinion (obviously): blame Drumph the POS-elect. He tweets lies asserted as fax (his spelling), his handlers will rationalize his brainfarts as ‘he tweeted his opinion, ayup just as good as your facts you media mongrill’.
And saying (writing) that I gots to take my own newly minted advice: All assertions, when written shall be closed with the punctuation mark of question mark? [see what I did there]
and drop the ubiquitous exclamation point !
oops ,rather: Drop the ubiquitous exclamation point ?
—
@raven
Or at least your interpretation of it.
/on-topic
I’m reminded of William K. Clifford’s essay The Ethics of Belief – well worth a read in this context. Clifford concludes not only that people are not always entitled to their opinions, due to a lack of support for them, but goes further in stating that “it is [morally] wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone to believe anything on insufficient evidence.”
namedropping Big Lebowski:
———————————————————-
my opinion (obviously): blame Drumph the POS-elect. He tweets lies asserted as fax (his spelling), his handlers will rationalize his brainfarts as ‘he tweeted his opinion, ayup just as good as your facts you media mongrill’.
And saying (writing) that I gots to take my own newly minted advice: All assertions, when written shall be closed with the punctuation mark of question mark? [see what I did there]
and drop the ubiquitous exclamation point !
oops. Rather: Drop the ubiquitous exclamation point ?
namedropping Big Lebowski:
———————————————————-
my opinion (obviously): blame Drumph the POS-elect. He tweets lies asserted as fax (his spelling), his handlers will rationalize his brainfarts as ‘he tweeted his opinion, ayup just as good as your facts you media mongrill’.
And saying (writing) that I gots to take my own newly minted advice: All assertions, when written shall be closed with the punctuation mark of question mark? [see what I did there]
and drop the ubiquitous exclamation point !
oops. Rather —> Drop the ubiquitous exclamation point ?
“I’m entitled to my opinion” morphs from a reasonable “I’m allowed to believe my opinion is right without fear of being imprisoned, fined, or met with violence” to “I’m allowed to believe my opinion is right without fear of anybody telling me I’m wrong.”
namedropping Big Lebowski:
———————————————————-
my opinion (obviously): blame Drumph the POS-elect. He tweets lies asserted as fax (his spelling), his handlers will rationalize his brainfarts as ‘he tweeted his opinion, ayup just as good as your facts you media mongrill’.
And saying (writing) that I gots to take my own newly minted advice: All assertions, when written shall be closed with the punctuation mark of question mark? [see what I did there]
and drop the ubiquitous exclamation point !
oops ,rather –> Drop the ubiquitous exclamation point ?
On another forum I mentioned Hughes viewpoint. Another poster commented:
Hughes: Hey, you spilled your latte down the front of my suit.
Me: I disagree.
I came to quote Ellison and Clifford, but I see my work has been done.
That’s just your opinion, man. — Big Lebowski
All assertions shall be closed with a question mark? [EG]
POS-elect Drumph likes to assert his BrainFartweets as “opinion” while his handlers say his farts are Presidentialfacks as he is Pres-elect so QED
*gulp.* just my opinion?
ack
sorry for the triple posting.
each one kept evaporating into vapor when I clicked the [Post Comment] button.
so I followed with the third (@22) from a different device.
sheesh
theres an “opinion” [Skare quotes] for you ?
Elementary logic, people.
If there’s no such thing as truth, there’s no such thing as lies.
So anyone who claims Trump (or Reagan, or Putin, or any given Bush) tells lies – IS A GODDAMN UNAMERICAN LIAR! LIKE HILLARY!! LOCK THEM ALL UP!!!
[Star Trek computer voice]But if there is no such thing as lies than Hillary cannot be a liar. But if Hillary isn’t a liar, then you are lying. But if you are lying, there is a such thing as lies. (Discs spinning faster.) But if there are no such things as lies, then you can’t be a liar. (Smoke starts coming out.) But if you can’t be a liar, then Hillary must be a liar. But if there is no such thing as lies than Hillary cannot be a liar. (Explodes.)[/Star Trek computer voice]
“they certainly have the right to say that, but they go further and demand that you respect that opinion as equally valid to that of a scientist.”
You still don’t entirely get it, PZ. They demand that we respect their creationist opinion as a scientific claim – which has to be taught in science class.
The claim that their work is scientific is made without evidence, and therefore can be and is dismissed without evidence.
The best way to show that the creationist work is scientific is to have their work published in the peer reviewed scientific literature. Not a journal that presupposes their phantasm really exists, and the babble is anything other than a book of mythology/fiction.
I dislike the OP title, which is essentially a bait-and-switch given the OP content.
The title is
The actual claim is
A non-misleading title would have been “You are entitled to your opinion but not entitled to having it respected”.
—
Sastra:
“I’m entitled to my opinion” morphs from a reasonable “I’m allowed to believe my opinion is right without fear of being imprisoned, fined, or met with violence” to “I’m allowed to believe my opinion is right without fear of anybody telling me I’m wrong.”
Both claims are necessarily true in the sense that they are opinions, but only conditionally true in the sense that they are opinions congruent with circumstance.
It has been said that all fortune cookies are funny if, when you read them, you append the phrase “in bed”.
Similarly, all factual statements are protected from the creationist-Matrix-BS if one appends to any factual statement a phrase such as “in the observable universe.”
To a creationist, claims that gravity exists or that the Earth is 4 billion years old can easily be dismissed by saying that we might All just be brains in vats, fed false info. This is in some Descartes sense true. However, in the normal universe where the rest of us live, we all act on the basis of presuming that the observable universe is true. Thus, in the observable universe, gravity exists, and you should not let your Creationist friends exit a building on the second floor. Likewise, in the observable universe, evolution of new species is observed, and you should not let your students delude themselves.
I can’t believe this is the first time in this context that I’ve thought to cite, for the zillionth time, Allen Wood’s 2008 “The Duty to Believe According to the Evidence” (which cites Clifford).
This is, as is increasingly evident, one of the central political issues of our age. As others have been pointing out (I’ve been beating this drum for a while), there’s an inherent and necessary link between the rejection or destruction of good epistemic standards and authoritarianism. Contrary to what many believe, this was Sokal and Bricmont’s leftwing argument all along.
I don’t think it’s contradictory for us to join religious groups in defending religious minorities (including ourselves) from rightwing attacks and at the same time continue to promote our message about the indispensability of reason and evidence to democracy.