POL133 - Opinion Entitlement

Author: Patrick Stokes
Position: Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Deakin University
Context: Discusses the idea of entitlement to personal opinions, particularly in philosophical and public discourse.

Challenge to Entitlement: Stokes states that in his classroom, students are not entitled to their opinions without arguments to support them.
- Encourages critical thinking and argumentation as fundamental skills in philosophy.
- Views the statement "everyone is entitled to their opinion" as problematic, suggesting it protects flawed beliefs from scrutiny.
Distinction of Opinion Types:
- Plato's Distinction: Differentiates between opinion (doxa) and certain knowledge.
- Categories of Opinion:
  - Subjective: Personal tastes or preferences (e.g., preferences for ice cream flavors).
  - Prudential/Political: Opinions relevant to societal governance (e.g., opinions on policies).
  - Expertise-Based: Opinions derived from technical knowledge (e.g., scientific, medical).
- Some opinions, particularly those grounded in expertise, deserve serious consideration.
Problematic Public Discourse:
- Enthusiastic non-experts often believe their opinions deserve equal weight as expert opinions.
- Example: Meryl Dorey, an anti-vaccine activist, claims her views should be respected despite lacking medical qualifications.
- Inequality in Expertise: Stokes argues there is confusion between policy commentary and scientific truth. Non-experts should not expect their views to carry the same weight in scientific discussions.

Media Responsibility: Stokes critiques media outlets for presenting unqualified opinions equally alongside expert opinions.
- Case Study: WIN-TV Wollongong’s coverage of a measles outbreak included commentary from Dorey, implying equal standing of opinions.
- Mediawatch's Position: Emphasized the necessity of distinguishing between evidence-based views and unfounded claims (referred to as "bulldust").
Misunderstanding of Debate: Anti-vaccination advocates misconstrue refusal to consider their unqualified opinions as censorship, conflating losing a debate with losing the right to express opinions.

Encouraging Critical Conversation: Stokes urges individuals to question the basis of claims of entitlement to opinions. By doing so, it can lead to more engaging and productive discussions.