Recently one of my Facebook friends posted the clever cartoon shown above. I love the drawing in which what appears to be 4 beams on the left morph into what appears to be 3 beams on the right. But I’m not sure that I agree with the quote from Marcus Aurelius. Surely there are some facts that are not merely opinion? For example, I’m pretty sure it’s a fact that I have 4 dogs. I would have to question the sanity of one who, having been to my home, stated the opinion that I have 5 dogs. At any rate, this cartoon got me thinking about the matter of “opinion”.
The Oxford Current English Dictionary (1998) defines an “opinion” as “an unproven belief”. This is the primary definition of the word; the definition first listed; the implicitly understood meaning of the word. We hear many opinions expressed daily, about all varieties of issues, and many of them grate on the mind primarily because they strike us as somehow illegitimate. The question I will briefly address here is this: Under what circumstances is it legitimate to express an opinion about something (a phenomenon, a person, an idea, so on)? Our guiding principal will be that it is legitimate to say, “In my opinion, X is…” when the reality, truth, or validity of X is at present NOT KNOWN, or worse, is UNKNOWABLE. It follows from this that the person expressing the opinion is obligated to know or investigate what is currently known about “X”. Purposely remaining ignorant about an issue on which you express an opinion does not make your opinion legitimate just because YOU do not know what is or is not known about X. We often hear it said that “everyone is entitled to an opinion on X, and one opinion is just as valid (legitimate) as another”. We might call this the principal of equal rights for opinions, or opinion relativism. The statement itself is an opinion, and in my view is illegitimate. There is no entitlement accompanying opinions. And seldom is one opinion about an issue equally as valid as another. Validity of opinions must be based on what is or can be known about X, not on what one might wish were true.
A series of examples will hopefully serve to illustrate this criterion of legitimacy. Consider these “opinions”, some of which can be heard expressed almost daily on the news.
1) In my opinion, light blue is the most soothing color.
2) In my opinion, the sun revolves around the earth.
3) In my opinion, the increasing atmospheric level of carbon dioxide does not cause global warming.
4) In my opinion, climate change is a hoax.
5) In my opinion, Donald Trump is the best candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination.
6) In my opinion, Dick Cheney is a psychopath.
7) In my opinion, we should say “All Lives Matter” instead of “Black Lives Matter”
8) In my opinion, increasing the minimum wage will result in increased unemployment.
9) In my opinion, a God exists.
So, let’s take these one at a time and attempt to assess the validity of the opinions expressed. The question to ask about each is, “Is this something one can have an opinion about; or is this a matter of fact?”
1) In my opinion, light blue is the most soothing color. In order for this to be a legitimate opinion, it would be necessary to be able to establish factually that light blue is the most soothing color. Of course, this is impossible, because what is soothing to one person may not be to another. The matter is personal and subjective, and cannot be decided by any amount of argument or discussion between 2 people who disagree about it. The matter of which color is most soothing may legitimately be opined about.
2) In my opinion, the sun revolves around the earth. There remain in the world people who hold this opinion—this belief. In the time before and even for quite a while after the Copernican revelations, it would have been legitimate to express an opinion about this, and to defend it with argument, because at that time the facts of the matter were not known and were not easily discovered. Now, of course, it is known that the earth revolves around the sun (more accurately, the sun and planets revolve in a complex way around a locus of points that all lie very close to the sun). In the 21st century, the opinion that the sun revolves around the earth is certainly illegitimate, even when the person expressing it is ignorant of the facts. By informing this person of the facts, you render his/her opinion illegitimate. It is irrational to express as an opinion something that contradicts what is known to be true. Something that is known to be true is not subject to anyone’s opinion.
3) In my opinion, the increasing atmospheric level of carbon dioxide does not cause global warming. This is an opinion that climate change deniers express even now in their attempts to ward off any action to reduce future climate impacts. It is illegitimate. It has been known for over 100 years that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared radiation at certain wavelengths. These wavelengths are contained in the spectrum of infrared radiation emitted by the earth. Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere absorbs radiation of these certain wavelengths, preventing it from escaping to space. The result is that this radiation is “trapped” in the earth’s atmosphere, and must cause warming of the atmosphere and ultimately the earth. These facts are well known. The information is easily obtained. Ignoring the facts and expressing as an opinion something that contradicts the facts is illegitimate. One opinion is not “just as valid” as another. Indeed, the statement that the increasing atmospheric level of carbon dioxide does not cause global warming is simply wrong.
4) In my opinion, climate change is a hoax. This is a view famously held and expressed by Senator James Inhofe, Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. This is actually a compound opinion, consisting of two parts: a) climate change is not occurring; b) therefore those who claim it is are perpetuating a hoax (a deliberate attempt to deceive). Sub-opinion a), that climate change is not occurring, is a matter of fact; we see it happening around us, in very much the way that its manifestation was predicted decades ago. It is a fact that the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is increasing; it is therefore also a fact that the surface of the earth is warming; it is therefore also a fact that climate is and will continue to change as things warm. If sub-opinion a) is illegitimate, and it is wrong to say that climate change is not occurring, then there is no question whatsoever of a hoax. Sub-opinion b) is also wrong.
5) In my opinion, Donald Trump is the best candidate for the Republican Presidential nomination. According to our criteria, this is a legitimate opinion, because there is no way of objectively establishing which candidate is “best”. What might be “best” for me might be “worst” for you. There is certainly no way to prove “best” when the criteria for “best” vary from individual to individual.
6) In my opinion, Dick Cheney is a psychopath. From my standpoint this “opinion” is legitimate if there is no current and available knowledge regarding its truth. Clearly Dick Cheney is either a psychopath or he is not. There is a clinical definition for the word psychopath. This label can properly be assigned to an individual only by someone qualified to do so, and that only after extensive examination. Whether or not Dick Cheney has undergone such an examination is a matter of fact, but this fact may not be known to anyone except Dick Cheney. If the information is not available to us, then it is legitimate to express an opinion on Dick Cheney’s psychopathy. At the instant that information regarding Dick Cheney’s psychological analysis is made available, then whether or not he is a psychopath becomes a matter of fact, and is no longer open to “opinion”.
7) In my opinion, we should say “All Lives Matter” instead of “Black Lives Matter”. This seems to me to be a legitimate opinion. It deals with the slogan (and name) of a group formed to protest the disproportionate killing of black men by police officers. It is a fact that the group chose a particular name; therefore the name of the group and the wording of the slogan is a matter of fact. However, it is not a fact that that “Black Lives Matter” is necessarily the best name, or even a better name than “All Lives Matter”. The name of the group is a fact; that it is the best or only of all possible names is not. It is legitimate to express an opinion about what the name of the group might or should be.
8) In my opinion, increasing the minimum wage will result in increased unemployment. This opinion, it seems to me, is valid. There is factual information available about the impact of raising the minimum wage on unemployment in specific cities, states, and nations. Unfortunately, in some of these cases, unemployment has increased following a minimum wage hike, whereas in others, it has decreased. This reveals that there are variables at work other than the two being considered, and that these other variables are somehow different in the different situations. Given the complexity of virtually any economy, and given that an economy functions as a system rather than as a collection of 2-variable relationships, it has thus far proved impossible to establish a direct cause-effect relationship between minimum wage and unemployment. If the relationship is unknowable in advance for a particular situation, then it is legitimate to express differing opinions about it.
9) In my opinion, a God exists. I believe this opinion to be legitimate because thus far the existence of a God has been unknowable. I differ with the author of reference 1, who believes that the existence/non-existence of a God is a matter of fact. What do you think?
It is a simple matter to state something about X, to label that statement as your opinion, and thereby to claim that it has equal standing with other statements about X. As we have seen, though, it is not always legitimate to do so. When “X” has been factually established as true, then it is not legitimate to express as an opinion that X is false. To state that X is false under these circumstances is irrational. The statement, “X” is false, is simply incorrect and labelling it as an opinion does not make it true, or of equal standing with the statement that “X” is true. It is lazy to express what you call an opinion about anything that you are ignorant about. Before you can legitimately express an opinion, it is incumbent upon you to know what is known about the subject that you would like to opine on.
Finally, there seems to be a widespread belief that opinion and controversy are inextricably linked. If something is controversial, is it legitimate for me to voice an opinion about it? Is my opinion then just as good as anyone else’s? My response to that would be, not necessarily. For example, during President Obama’s first term and continuing to the present there was much controversy over both his citizenship and his religion. Many prominent people voiced the “opinion” that Pres. Obama could not legally be president because he was not born in the United States, and therefore was not a citizen. Others proclaimed loudly the “opinion” that he was a Muslim. But these are not legitimate opinions. They are simply irrational statements that contradict the known facts: that President Obama was born in Hawaii, and that he is a Christian. Opinion is simply not appropriate here.
Here are a couple of other writings on the same subject:
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/...
http://www.houstonpress.com/...