No You Re Not Entitled To Your Own Opinion Summary

In his article “ No, You’re Not Entitled to Your Own Opinion”, Patrick Stokes suggests that while you can express an opinion, if you expect others to listen, you need to provide an informed argument. He describes Plato’s distinction between opinion or belief and knowledge. An opinion of personal preference is unarguable. However, a personal opinion on technical-based issues is sometimes confused with knowledge and is presented to others as an undeniable fact. In this case, amateurs think they have the right to give dissenting views on a scientific matter and question the views of people with expertise in the field. Even though people may feel that they are entitled to their opinions, for Stokes, it is important to distinguish who actually has the relevant expertise to speak about certain technical field. It is fair to say that an opinion on technical-based issues should be defensible, and having the sufficient knowledge and expertise helps you support your argument with strong evidence. Thus, having the expertise and being able to provide strong evidence enable you to be entitled to your opinion.
Perhaps the first. You are not going “to give bulldust equal time with serious expertise” (Stokes). Unsupported dissenting views from people who pose as “experts” are not worth the attention and should not be treated as valuable. The same is true with the case of Meryl Dorey, the leader of Australian Vaccination Network. She believes that she should be able to make arguments on vaccination even if she doesn’t have any medical experience or qualification. However, without analytical knowledge on vaccination, she may have expressed biased perceptions. Her scientific opinion has no claim to