You’re not entitled to your opinion

[Syne]

A philosophy professor explains why you’re not entitled to your opinion

Stokes teaches at Deakin University in Australia, and his message to students on their first day of class is: “You are not entitled to your opinion.” The reason Stokes makes the provocation is in order to teach his students how to construct and defend an argument, he says.

“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,”...

“But if ‘entitled to an opinion’ means ‘entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth’ then it’s pretty clearly false.”

Read the article. It comes from a perspective you will likely agree with.

This is what I see often on this forum. People who think their opinions should magically matter, even when they are incapable of defending them, and me "continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful". I really don't expect this to sink in for anyone, but just let it simmer in the back of your mind.

[RainbowUnicorn]

A philosophy professor explains why you’re not entitled to your opinion

Stokes teaches at Deakin University in Australia, and his message to students on their first day of class is: “You are not entitled to your opinion.” The reason Stokes makes the provocation is in order to teach his students how to construct and defend an argument, he says.

“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,”...

“But if ‘entitled to an opinion’ means ‘entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth’ then it’s pretty clearly false.”

Read the article. It comes from a perspective you will likely agree with.

This is what I see often on this forum. People who think their opinions should magically matter, even when they are incapable of defending them, and me "continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful". I really don't expect this to sink in for anyone, but just let it simmer in the back of your mind.

my mind is not big enough to have a front & back. things just skim off the front like a Rorschach test in berserker mode while the entire world simmers in a hazey mirage like,
 Salvador Dali-food fight in a dounut Factory on rainbow icing day.

That said i pondered if you might gesticulate to the "my opinion is entitlist" type people who think regardles of them having no factual knowledge, expereince in researching in any form and have just heard from some gossipy trend follower friends a click bait story headline that their opinion matters for intellectual consideration and statistical valuation.

quite a difference from a millenial who knows absolutely nothing of worldly affairs and is more than happy to state that.(breath of fresh air)

[Secular Sanity]

Now that isn’t exactly what I'd call sitting out in left field making dandelion crowns, is it?

RainbowUnicorn steps up to the plate.  Syne lobs one in and BAM!

Rule number 1:  Never underestimate your opponent.

[Yazata]

Stokes teaches at Deakin University in Australia, and his message to students on their first day of class is: “You are not entitled to your opinion.” The reason Stokes makes the provocation is in order to teach his students how to construct and defend an argument, he says.

I think that he could have come up with a less emotionally provocative question to challenge his students. My guess is that this guy is personally frustrated because many people have opinions that differ from his and wants to 'vent' a bit.

“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,”...

“But if ‘entitled to an opinion’ means ‘entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth’ then it’s pretty clearly false.”

"Should have been abandoned" in whose opinion?. This guy appears to have already gotten himself entangled in a self referential paradox if the "you" in the subject line applies to everyone and to all opinions. So I'm guessing that he's speaking about other people's opinions that he personally disagrees with and is excluding himself from the scope of the "you". So what makes him the authority on who can rightfully hold opinions and which opinions need to be abandoned?

What's the alternative to people forming their own opinions? Having everyone defer to the opinions of the academic/journalistic elites, believing whatever they are told to believe?

And how can people possibly be prevented from forming their own opinions? (There's often an implicit authoritarian message when university professors start talking.)

I think that people (including students) should be encouraged to think for themselves and form their own conclusions. That's where I may or may not disagree vehemently with this guy.

But... and this is where I'm more likely to agree... nobody else is obligated to agree with those opinions. People are supposed to be thinking for themselves and forming their own conclusions, right?

So, the missing ingredient is persuading other people to agree.  

But that isn't just a matter of logic, it's also a broader issue of rhetoric. In other words, in order to persuade somebody, especially involving something deep and emotional like religion or politics, one needs to address the other person's concerns, one needs to give serious concern to why the other person thinks as he or she does. There's often a psychological element of emotion to it that philosophy usually ignores or dismisses, an element of personal and group identity that's often attacked and belittled. (Almost all politics these days is identity-politics.)

So my opinion (it's mine, take it or leave it) is that philosophical critical-thinking classes are fine, but they don't really address the kind of rhetorical issues that are most in play in hot-button disagreements.    

This is what I see often on this forum. People who think their opinions should magically matter, even when they are incapable of defending them, and me "continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful". I really don't expect this to sink in for anyone, but just let it simmer in the back of your mind.

I don't have any objection to people saying what they want to say on boards like this, so long as it isn't insulting or trollish. But I reserve the right to decide for myself whether I respect their opinions. I decide for myself whether I find their opinions persuasive.

[RainbowUnicorn]

expresion
opinion
suggestion
intention
direction

ideology
philisophical premise
theorhetical premise
qualitative linguistic discoarse

propoganda
sermon
ideological directive

of the people
for the people
in-spite of the people
against the people
for the self
against the self

[C C]

I think that he could have come up with a less emotionally provocative question to challenge his students. My guess is that this guy is personally frustrated because many people have opinions that differ from his and wants to 'vent' a bit.

[...] "Should have been abandoned" in whose opinion?. This guy appears to have already gotten himself entangled in a self referential paradox if the "you" in the subject line applies to everyone and to all opinions. So I'm guessing that he's speaking about other people's opinions that he personally disagrees with and is excluding himself from the scope of the "you". So what makes him the authority on who can rightfully hold opinions and which opinions need to be abandoned?

What's the alternative to people forming their own opinions? Having everyone defer to the opinions of the academic/journalistic elites, believing whatever they are told to believe? [...]

There's a centuries long intellectual industry devoted to devising frameworks (proper thinking, proper evaluation, etc) that can divest rivals and opponents of the rocket fuel to even get off the ground in regard to their thought orientations, sentiments, views, judgements, etc.

But OTOH ... disciplines, professions, skill-sets and administrations are expected to be authoritarian within their own turf or area of jurisdiction.

So we apparently have to be vigilant of where we're at when exercising verbal liberty. Whether one is abiding in a public venue with few regulatory presets or in the private property of a pre-established system with its own standards for culling the chaff from the seeds.

[Zinjanthropos]

I would have got up and walked out. Is having no opinion an opinion? By walking away, would I be expressing an opinion? By his ground rules, Stokes would not be able to offer his opinion on my actions. So, see ya.

[Syne]

my mind is not big enough to have a front & back. things just skim off the front like a Rorschach test in berserker mode while the entire world simmers in a hazey mirage like,
 Salvador Dali-food fight in a dounut Factory on rainbow icing day.

Yeah, I just recently told SS that your posts are a stream-of-consciousness. So rest assured, I know what to expect from you.

That said i pondered if you might gesticulate to the "my opinion is entitlist" type people who think regardles of them having no factual knowledge, expereince in researching in any form and have just heard from some gossipy trend follower friends a click bait story headline that their opinion matters for intellectual consideration and statistical valuation.

Yes, this refers to exactly those sort of people. As well as people who just assume their opinion, regardless of provenance (usually undisclosed), should count as a well-justified argument.

Now that isn’t exactly what I'd call sitting out in left field making dandelion crowns, is it?

RainbowUnicorn steps up to the plate.  Syne lobs one in and BAM!

Rule number 1:  Never underestimate your opponent.

Have any thoughts of your own about the OP? Anything at all?
Opponent? His stream-of-consciousness certainly seems more on point than your post.

Stokes teaches at Deakin University in Australia, and his message to students on their first day of class is: “You are not entitled to your opinion.” The reason Stokes makes the provocation is in order to teach his students how to construct and defend an argument, he says.

I think that he could have come up with a less emotionally provocative question to challenge his students. My guess is that this guy is personally frustrated because many people have opinions that differ from his and wants to 'vent' a bit.

How else would you convey to someone that they have no right for their unsupported opinions to be taken seriously? I guess you could say all that, but I assume the provocation is meant to shock people out of their intellectual complacency. Why would you resort to assumptions about the guy's character? Compared to the usual quality of your posts, that's quite disappointing.

“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,”...

“But if ‘entitled to an opinion’ means ‘entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth’ then it’s pretty clearly false.”

"Should have been abandoned" in whose opinion?. This guy appears to have already gotten himself entangled in a self referential paradox if the "you" in the subject line applies to everyone and to all opinions. So I'm guessing that he's speaking about other people's opinions that he personally disagrees with and is excluding himself from the scope of the "you". So what makes him the authority on who can rightfully hold opinions and which opinions need to be abandoned?

What's the alternative to people forming their own opinions? Having everyone defer to the opinions of the academic/journalistic elites, believing whatever they are told to believe?

And how can people possibly be prevented from forming their own opinions? (There's often an implicit authoritarian message when university professors start talking.)

I think that people (including students) should be encouraged to think for themselves and form their own conclusions. That's where I may or may not disagree vehemently with this guy.

But... and this is where I'm more likely to agree... nobody else is obligated to agree with those opinions. People are supposed to be thinking for themselves and forming their own conclusions, right?

So, the missing ingredient is persuading other people to agree.  

But that isn't just a matter of logic, it's also a broader issue of rhetoric. In other words, in order to persuade somebody, especially involving something deep and emotional like religion or politics, one needs to address the other person's concerns, one needs to give serious concern to why the other person thinks as he or she does. There's often a psychological element of emotion to it that philosophy usually ignores or dismisses, an element of personal and group identity that's often attacked and belittled. (Almost all politics these days is identity-politics.)

So my opinion (it's mine, take it or leave it) is that philosophical critical-thinking classes are fine, but they don't really address the kind of rhetorical issues that are most in play in hot-button disagreements.

From the thrust of the article, I'd assume "should be abandoned" because they cannot be justified and defended. If an opinion can be defended, then it can stand on it's own justifications in the free market of ideas. Again, you seem to be inferring motive not necessarily present or implied, in my reading. While I don't agree with the views this guy presents as fact, I assume he can defend these opinions, to some degree of success or failure.

Did you even read the article? He's just saying that you cannot expect others to take your opinion seriously if you cannot defend and justify it. That's more rigorously true of any scientific field, and should be, IMO, trivially true of any opinion. It has nothing to do with forming an opinion. It only addresses the unreasonable expectations people often have to the reception of the their opinions. Seriously, go read that whole article.

Defense and justification for an opinion covers everything that could bear on its persuasiveness.

This is what I see often on this forum. People who think their opinions should magically matter, even when they are incapable of defending them, and me "continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful". I really don't expect this to sink in for anyone, but just let it simmer in the back of your mind.

I don't have any objection to people saying what they want to say on boards like this, so long as it isn't insulting or trollish. But I reserve the right to decide for myself whether I respect their opinions. I decide for myself whether I find their opinions persuasive.

Of course. But people often call others "trollish" just because they do not accept their paltry arguments...and often do not bother to address reasonable critiques of their justifications. That is not the problem of the person expecting you to justify your own opinions, but a problem of you failing to do so.

[Yazata]

I would have got up and walked out. Is having no opinion an opinion? By walking away, would I be expressing an opinion? By his ground rules, Stokes would not be able to offer his opinion on my actions. So, see ya.

I think that if I was a student in that class, I'd get kind of a smirk on my face and ask this guy whether the scope of the generic pronoun 'you' in "You're not entitled to your opinion" includes him.

If it does, I'd point out that his opinion seems to be self-refuting. If it doesn't, if it was directed to his class and if the "you" referred to his students, I'd pursue that in order to make the professor's disdain for his own students obvious to the rest of the class.

Then I'd probably drop the class, since I don't think that I like this guy.

[Magical Realist]

Seems abit 1984-ish to me. Maybe my opinion doesn't rely on argumentation. Maybe it is a complex mixture of intuition, moral value, experience, and aesthetic preference rather than rational arguments. People can form opinions for any number of reasons. Just because they don't submit to stern logical analysis doesn't mean we have no right to have them. Besides, who says reality always happens in a "rational" (ie. humanly understandable) way?