We’re taught in school that everyone is entitled to an opinion. If we were paying attention in Social Studies, we may have learned that we have a right to freedom of expression which is enshrined in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Section 2)b) of our Charter gives us “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms, freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression…”
We cling to this clause brandishing it around like a weapon. We believe that our freedom to expression entitles us to our opinion. We, naturally, want to be heard. We think our perspective matters. As author Morgan Housel notes, “The strongest held beliefs are usually on topics with the most uncertainty. No one is as passionate about geometry as they are about religion.” Opinions are just that, a perspective, not a monopoly on the truth.
If we accept that we have a right to an opinion, does it necessarily follow that all opinions are equal? Even if we’re all entitled to an opinion, aren’t some worth more than others? After all, as the authors of All Minus One wrote, “The usefulness of an opinion is itself a matter of opinion.” In other words, just because we may have a right to an opinion, it doesn’t mean that others are obliged to take us seriously. Nor does a right to an opinion mean that we have a right to be heard or a right to a platform. Nor does a right to an opinion imply a responsibility on the part of others to listen.
In a similar vein, have you had a dinner conversation slide sideways in recent years with family or friends over a dispute over a “fact?” The smart person in the room pulls out their smartphone like they’re a cowboy drawing a gun in a western movie. They shout at Siri a question to find the “facts.” Siri dutifully returns her results of which our cowboy selects the first result as an indisputable verification of the point they were trying to make. No problem, no expertise needed, no academic credentials, no experience, just the small device in our hands allows us to offer input on anything anywhere. Is this the sign of intelligent debate?
Another arena where we are all experts is sports. As fantasy leagues evolve in almost every sport, the average fan feels like they’re sitting in the chair of both General Manager and Head Coach. Fans feel like they can make decisions of comparable quality to those of the professionals. TV and Talk shows as well as dedicated satellite radio channels provide a place for opinions to flow back and forth between the amateur experts. Every hour of each day affords fans the opportunity to armchair quarterback the decisions of experts like they are on the same playing field. We don’t even need to read the statistics pages in the newspaper anymore, our opinions count.
Social media allows everyone to be an “expert” offering their “takes.” There used to be significant stepping stones one had to jump over to have a letter to the editor published. Nowadays, letters to the editors are virtually wide open. The comments section of articles affords anyone the opportunity to chime in with their opinion. Comments are seen by those offering them as serious contributions to the “conversation”. They feel like the comments can change minds and move the discussion forward. They see either the number of likes or dislikes as either affirmation of their intelligence or proof that those disliking are idiots.
In many comments sections we don’t even have to accurately identify ourselves. We can contribute anonymously. There’s no indication of who the person commenting is, what is their background, where are they from, have they gone to school, do they have any experience on the subject matter? The internet allows likes or followers to trump facts or experience and serve as credibility. People have strong views on geo-political issues yet can’t point to the countries over which they’re opining on a map. Many will argue feverishly against a particular party’s program while not being able to name their local representative. We have opinions on who should pay taxes and at what levels while not being responsible to pay taxes ourselves. How can we reasonably be experts on subjects in which we have no experience? Anyone anywhere can set up a blog and contribute to the noise of the news. Yes, this guy included.
We’re taught that we have a voice. That we should stand up and be heard. We’re coached to believe that our opinions matter just because we matter. We’re not taught that having the right to something doesn’t mean we should not want to work hard to earn the best opinion that we can. The British poet William Butler Yeats observed, “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” Machiavelli similarly noted, “Minds are of three kinds. One is capable of thinking for itself; another is able to understand the thinking of others; and a third can neither think for itself nor understand the thinking of others. The first is of the highest excellence, the second is excellent, and the third is worthless.”
Too often, we seem to be more interested in claiming our right to an opinion than doing the work to have an informed position on a subject. We want to avoid being entitled to our opinion and instead focusing on earning one. We want to take Machiavelli’s advice and develop a mind capable of thinking for itself. Expertise is earned. Depth of domain knowledge is desirable. Have you done the work?
Our aim should be to create critical thinkers. What is critical thinking? It’s not yelling “shut up” to those with whom you disagree.
In an article from The Western Standard a professor is quoted, “You’re allowed to have an opinion, but you have to be able to defend that opinion, and you have to be willing to acknowledge that almost all of our opinions are messy. … It’s only by recognizing reality that we can start to try to make progress on what are all inherently really complicated arguments.”
Critical thinking starts by recognizing reality. Begin by determining what is being asserted. Then ask, is it a statement of fact or an opinion? If it is a fact, is it verifiable? What is the source? Is the source agreed upon? Are there multiple sources? Is it a “settled” fact? Do others have a different interpretation/assessment? Trust, but verify. What’s your proof? In a Juno News Op Ed (9/21/25), the author encourages questions like the following to create critical thinkers, “What is the evidence? Whose interests are being served? What assumptions lie beneath this claim? How might another perspective alter my view?” If evidence isn’t presented or is intentionally withheld, this tells you all you need to know about the person asserting an opinion. Don’t blindly accept what is being offered.
We can be critical thinkers without becoming critics. We’re not seeking cynicism. Others may have come to their perspective in perfectly reasonable ways. We’re seeking to understand both where they’re coming from and what they are offering. We’re then breaking down what is being said and asking questions. We’re doing this not to win. We’re not trying to tear down someone else to lift ourselves up. We’re doing this to improve our own understanding or to determine how much weight to put on what is being offered.
Perhaps we could do with less opinions and more critical thinking. As an Indian sage, Nisargadatta Maharaj, offered, “The only true statement the mind can make is ‘I don’t know.’” As Thomas Carlyle suggested, “Speech is great; but silence is greater.” Why? Because as Stephen Hawking noted, “Quiet people have the loudest minds.” We’re encouraging developing a loud mind as opposed to a loud voice. Silence serves as it buys time to build a well-constructed perspective. Francis Bacon suggested, “Silence is the sleep that nourishes wisdom.” Worry less about expressing yourself and more about exerting effort to develop strong understanding on subjects and issues.
At the end of the day, we’d do well to heed the wisdom offered by author Paulo Coelho, “The world is changed by your example, not by your opinion.”
