El artículo es claro al menos desde mi punto de vista. Efectivamente no todas las opiniones son respetables, ni tienen el mismo peso porque no están cualificados para poder valorar los resultados de un tipo de investigación.
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.”
Perhaps that’s one reason (no doubt there are others) why enthusiastic amateurs think they’re entitled to disagree with climate scientists and immunologists and have their views “respected.”
Sin embargo, hay personas (a tenor de los comentarios) que no han entendido lo que quiere decir el autor; de hecho tiene que volver a explicarlo en un comentario:
C&P
“As you’ll see from the article, I did not say that people are not entitled to express an opinion – indeed I clearly affirmed that everyone can think and say what they like. Hence to suggest I’m endorsing censorship involves the same confusion between being-entitled-to-speak and being-entitled-to-be-taken-seriously that I discuss in the article. To suggest I don’t support ‘open access to information’ is similarly false. What I don’t support is treating all available information as equally valid.
You ask what proof Jonathan Holmes offered and what proof I offer that your assertions are false. As far as I know, Holmes doesn’t have any relevant qualifications, and neither do I. So I’m not going to argue the science with you, as I’m simply not qualified to do that. That is, essentially, my whole point. Without the relevant training, I haven’t earned a basis on which to think I could evaluate claims made in as complex a field as immunology. Any scientific opinions I could form have no claim to credibility. My only qualification on that topic is that I have a brain, and that’s not qualification enough to tell scientists they’re wrong about science.
Now, here’s where you and I are entitled to have opinions, and to have those opinions taken seriously: we’re citizens, and as such policy responses to science are very much our business. Should vaccines be compulsory? How are individual autonomy and collective welfare to be weighed against each other? What risks are acceptable and what are not? What rights does a parent have over the health-care decisions of their children? These are all interesting and important questions, and they’re questions you’re more than entitled to present strong views over. But when you or I stray into the science itself, we’re getting into territory where we can’t expect our views to carry any weight”.
Comentarios
El artículo es claro al menos desde mi punto de vista. Efectivamente no todas las opiniones son respetables, ni tienen el mismo peso porque no están cualificados para poder valorar los resultados de un tipo de investigación.
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.”
Perhaps that’s one reason (no doubt there are others) why enthusiastic amateurs think they’re entitled to disagree with climate scientists and immunologists and have their views “respected.”
Sin embargo, hay personas (a tenor de los comentarios) que no han entendido lo que quiere decir el autor; de hecho tiene que volver a explicarlo en un comentario:
C&P
“As you’ll see from the article, I did not say that people are not entitled to express an opinion – indeed I clearly affirmed that everyone can think and say what they like. Hence to suggest I’m endorsing censorship involves the same confusion between being-entitled-to-speak and being-entitled-to-be-taken-seriously that I discuss in the article. To suggest I don’t support ‘open access to information’ is similarly false. What I don’t support is treating all available information as equally valid.
You ask what proof Jonathan Holmes offered and what proof I offer that your assertions are false. As far as I know, Holmes doesn’t have any relevant qualifications, and neither do I. So I’m not going to argue the science with you, as I’m simply not qualified to do that. That is, essentially, my whole point. Without the relevant training, I haven’t earned a basis on which to think I could evaluate claims made in as complex a field as immunology. Any scientific opinions I could form have no claim to credibility. My only qualification on that topic is that I have a brain, and that’s not qualification enough to tell scientists they’re wrong about science.
Now, here’s where you and I are entitled to have opinions, and to have those opinions taken seriously: we’re citizens, and as such policy responses to science are very much our business. Should vaccines be compulsory? How are individual autonomy and collective welfare to be weighed against each other? What risks are acceptable and what are not? What rights does a parent have over the health-care decisions of their children? These are all interesting and important questions, and they’re questions you’re more than entitled to present strong views over. But when you or I stray into the science itself, we’re getting into territory where we can’t expect our views to carry any weight”.
eso lo sabemos en Meneame desde hace tiempo.