“Everyone has a right to his/her opinion” is a social standard because it helps people get along. The total solution to this problem is not telling people that they aren’t entitled to their opinions, so much as making it so that when you someone’s opinion is ill-founded, they say, “Hey, you’re right. I should change my opinion!”
Given that, in reality, that almost never happens, the expression exists as a way of maintaining civility. That way the person pointing out that no, the earth is not 6000 years old becomes the “bad guy” if he keeps pushing the point after this defense is invoked. Not good for truth, but good for short-term social stability.
On the note of what an opinion is, the expression is totally accurate with respect to matters of taste, e.g. “Chocolate is the best ice cream flavor.” But with fact-entangled should statements, e.g “The federal government should raise taxes on the top income bracket,” the speaker is actually (usually) expressing a factual claim, such as this being an effective way to reduce the budget deficit. To the extent that these are factual claims, you are not entitled to them.
How useful are debates in general for changing the opinions of the person you are debating with? Most debates are implicitly or explicitly framed as contests with opponents, a zero-sum game. The right thing might be to focus more on the 3rd party onlookers, some consequences might be:
*Seek bigger debates (more viewers)
*Feel less sad when your opponent “beats” you, using twisted logic.
*Present more and different types of arguments.
*Do wrestle pigs, if the debate is entertaining and public.
*Focus more on getting new info in a debate, then isolate yourself to perform belief updates when you are not in contest mode anymore.
*If the last point applies equally to your opponent, stop before they get annoyed with you. Allow them to perform calm private reasoning later instead.
“Everyone has a right to his/her opinion” is a social standard because it helps people get along. The total solution to this problem is not telling people that they aren’t entitled to their opinions, so much as making it so that when you someone’s opinion is ill-founded, they say, “Hey, you’re right. I should change my opinion!”
Given that, in reality, that almost never happens, the expression exists as a way of maintaining civility. That way the person pointing out that no, the earth is not 6000 years old becomes the “bad guy” if he keeps pushing the point after this defense is invoked. Not good for truth, but good for short-term social stability.
On the note of what an opinion is, the expression is totally accurate with respect to matters of taste, e.g. “Chocolate is the best ice cream flavor.” But with fact-entangled should statements, e.g “The federal government should raise taxes on the top income bracket,” the speaker is actually (usually) expressing a factual claim, such as this being an effective way to reduce the budget deficit. To the extent that these are factual claims, you are not entitled to them.
How useful are debates in general for changing the opinions of the person you are debating with? Most debates are implicitly or explicitly framed as contests with opponents, a zero-sum game. The right thing might be to focus more on the 3rd party onlookers, some consequences might be:
*Seek bigger debates (more viewers)
*Feel less sad when your opponent “beats” you, using twisted logic.
*Present more and different types of arguments.
*Do wrestle pigs, if the debate is entertaining and public.
*Focus more on getting new info in a debate, then isolate yourself to perform belief updates when you are not in contest mode anymore.
*If the last point applies equally to your opponent, stop before they get annoyed with you. Allow them to perform calm private reasoning later instead.
Can someone think of others?