For a while “at the end of the day” was my most hated
phrase. Everyone said it and often: on
TV, on social media and in everyday conversation. What made it so irritating is the build-up. ‘At the end of the day’… ooh and?
Somebody’s going to say something profoundly important next. And?
Ugh is that all? *sigh* they
never do say anything important and that’s why I hate it. It’s always a soggy let-down.
Now there’s a new kid in town and it’s that “everyone’s
entitled to their opinion”. Often, “at
the end of the day” will be thrown in along with it, which is the ultimate in irritating
double whammies! It’s an expression used
to protect opinions that should have been abandoned. It is a stubborn declaration of “I can say
what I want and think whatever I like”.
It is a tool used to close down a debate, when you have nothing left to
say.
Of course, as long as your opinion isn’t offensive or
abusive, you do have a right to hold it and to air it. But there are different categories of opinion
and whilst many of these opinions are merely tastes and personal preferences
for which there is no right or wrong answer, some opinions depend upon facts. It would be silly to argue about somebody’s
opinion that red is the nicest colour or that pizza is the best food in the
world. Similarly, political persuasions,
some ethical issues and thoughts on religion come with a wide spectrum of ideas
and there’s plenty of scope to decide which of them are best suited to you. There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answer as to
why you have a faith, why you’re a vegetarian or why you’re a socialist.
There is usually a ‘right’ and a ‘wrong’ answer when it
comes to factual opinions, particularly in the fields of medicine, economics,
science and the judiciary, but thanks probably to Google we now have a blur
between the first type of opinion (tastes, preferences, likes/dislikes) and the
second type (factual opinion). As it
stands, laypersons have no entitlement to refute the professional opinion of
immunologists, evolutionary scientists, geologists, climate change scientists
or even engineers (who absolutely can tell you exactly why the twin towers
collapsed on 9/11). Laypersons will
maintain that they have a right to hold whichever view they please (they may
air their opinion that Mickey Mouse melted the polar ice caps if they wish),
but they absolutely do not have the entitlement to demand that their view be
respected or that it is of equal worth to a factual opinion.
I am not a stupid person by any means, but I have sense
enough to know that I cannot argue about the age of the earth with a geologist
who has studied and worked in the field for forty years. Similarly, not ever having studied immunology
at a university, if I wish to learn about the latest vaccine program issued to
my children I know that the nation’s immunologists will have the answers I
require. Are the experts always
right? Of course not! Are they right more often than ‘answers in
genesis.com’ and ‘vaccination truth.org’?
One billion times YES!!!
At one time we were respectful of our experts. Today, Google has given every Joe Bloggs with barely a GCSE and a-level to rub together the same level of confidence in his
opinions awarded to our most brilliant innovators and scientists. “I’ve done my research,” Joe Bloggs will say
with supreme conviction in his abilities to Google. Well, no he hasn’t undertaken research as he
(and I) aren’t equipped to research fields of expertise in which we aren’t
educated. We aren’t able to process the
data, statistics and technical information as we’ve never studied immunology,
geology or any of the (usually) scientific fields which seem to evoke a strong
sense of objection and mistrust in the general public. Joe Bloggs is often further handicapped by
his inability to distinguish real science from pseudoscience and unfortunately for the
modern world we live in, Dr Google, never thought to idiot-proof the monster he
created.
Does “everyone is entitled to an opinion” simply mean that
you have freedom of expression? If so,
yes you absolutely do and I will fight the corner of anybody who wishes to
utter the dreaded, “vaccines cause autism”, even though it has been disproved more times than the sun revolving the earth.
Freedom of speech for me trumps the censorship of wrong speech, but what
“everyone is entitled to an opinion” clearly can’t ever mean is that everyone’s
opinion has equal claim to the truth.
There IS a right and a wrong where factual based opinion is concerned
and 99.999% of the time, the experts have it in the bag.
The famous evolutionary biologist Dr Richard Dawkins refuses
to debate with creationists who say the earth is 6000 years old and was created
perfect and complete with humans living next door to dinosaurs (yes, a bit like
the Flintstones). His reasoning is that
it would put creationism on an equal footing with real science and it shouldn’t
be awarded this respect. I think he’s
right. There aren’t two sides to a
facts-based argument – there is only one side which has the truth.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but nobody is
entitled to their own ‘facts’.
No comments:
Post a Comment