Summary Of No, You Re Not Entitled To You Opinion By Patrick Stokes

During the first week of class, we discussed the article, “No, you’re not entitled to you opinion” by Patrick Stokes. Just the title of the article interested me, as it's commonplace for people to say “Well, I’m entitled to my opinion” during a discussion or argument. Stokes points out that "Well, I'm entitled to my opinion" is often used to end a discussion or argument without having to further explain your justification for your beliefs. He makes the following important distinction; while you may be entitled to say what you believe, you are not entitled to have your opinion taken as seriously as an expert in the given field. There are different types of opinions and they can be categorized. The type of opinions Stokes describes can be put into two general categories. They are:

1.
People can be considered experts in their own tastes or preferences. According to Stokes, opinions based on your own tastes and preferences are opinions you are entitled to. Opinions about bigger issues, such as the right course of treatment for a cancer patient, can not be based on tastes and preferences. The opinion of an oncologist, who has medical training and experience, cannot carry the same weight as the opinion formed by a family member who does not hold equal medical training or experience. You're entitled to opinions about tastes and preferences. You aren't entitled to opinions about things not based on your personal opinions and preferences. In cases for bigger issues, expertise matters. You can't hold opinions as equal, or say they deserve to be treated equally when the knowledge, expertise level and experience level are not equal. Someone can have an opinion about how cancer patients should proceed with their medical care, but they aren't entitled to it, and their opinion should not be given equal consideration to the opinion of an