I think this problem, if it exists, is aided by the often misguided fact/opinion distinction commonly taught in schools. It’s surely useful to some extent in the context of journalism or law, but it leads to all sorts of problems in fields like ethics and science. If ‘everbody’s entitled to an opinion’ and there are bright lines between fact and opinion, then people will feel indignant for their opinions being declared false.
Example: ”Abby: I think it’s okay to set cats on fire” “Bob: But that’s clearly wrong; (insert argument here)” ”Abby: How can it be wrong; it’s just my opinion!”
Clearly your doctor’s opinion on how to treat your cancer is more valuable than your barber’s. And the geologist’s opinion on whether Europe is getting farther from North America is better than the chemist’s.
Actually, I have a workaround for the kind of situation you used as your example:
Abby: I think it’s okay to set cats on fire
Me: You have a very strange definition of ‘okay’. (Accompanied by appropriate social signaling that it’s not the good kind of strange—depending on the person I may just say outright that I don’t approve of it.)
Abby’s statement is actually true, assuming she’s not joking or being sarcastic or something odd like that. What she thinks is not correct, if she’s using a definition of ‘okay’ that this society would consider normal, but that’s not a very good assumption to make in situations like this, and pointing out the incongruity will get farther than trying to argue that a true statement is false.
I think this problem, if it exists, is aided by the often misguided fact/opinion distinction commonly taught in schools. It’s surely useful to some extent in the context of journalism or law, but it leads to all sorts of problems in fields like ethics and science. If ‘everbody’s entitled to an opinion’ and there are bright lines between fact and opinion, then people will feel indignant for their opinions being declared false.
Example:
”Abby: I think it’s okay to set cats on fire”
“Bob: But that’s clearly wrong; (insert argument here)”
”Abby: How can it be wrong; it’s just my opinion!”
Clearly your doctor’s opinion on how to treat your cancer is more valuable than your barber’s. And the geologist’s opinion on whether Europe is getting farther from North America is better than the chemist’s.
Actually, I have a workaround for the kind of situation you used as your example:
Abby: I think it’s okay to set cats on fire
Me: You have a very strange definition of ‘okay’. (Accompanied by appropriate social signaling that it’s not the good kind of strange—depending on the person I may just say outright that I don’t approve of it.)
Abby’s statement is actually true, assuming she’s not joking or being sarcastic or something odd like that. What she thinks is not correct, if she’s using a definition of ‘okay’ that this society would consider normal, but that’s not a very good assumption to make in situations like this, and pointing out the incongruity will get farther than trying to argue that a true statement is false.