What Is The Arguments In Patrick Stokes's Essay

840 Words4 Pages
Patrick Stokes’s contradicts the idea that people are entitled to their own opinion and reasons that people are only entitled for what can be argued, thus he fairly exposes people to the idea of making claims on particular subjects people can progressively argue for. In his article, “No, you’re not entitled to your opinion,” Stokes’s idea seems reasonably fair. In the article he gives the example of Meryl Dorey, the leader of the Australian Vaccination Networks, an anti-vaccination group, a woman who goes on television and voices her “opinion” on vaccinations. Meryl Dorey is a perfect example of why people shouldn’t voice their outlook if they can’t uphold it with facts. She demonstrates no scientific knowledge on the subject she advocates her opinion by arguing that vaccines can cause autism when clearly, as the article states that it has yet been disproven that vaccines don’t…show more content…
Stokes quotes Jonathan Holmes, the media watch host and how he was blunter about the entire subject, “there’s evidence, and there’s bulldust.” It also comes to show that it isn’t exactly an argument or intellectual discussion if one side has all the proven facts and the opposing side doesn’t. When a professor tells his or her students that they’re not entitled to their own opinion two things can happen, students can both gain or lose something when exposed to Stokes’s idea. Students can be given valuable knowledge and new perspectives. Students will perhaps take a particular approach to subject in a different point of view and maybe even think about the position they want to stand on based on the particular subject in order to support its cause. Just like everything else in life, it has both a beneficial side and an opposing

    More about What Is The Arguments In Patrick Stokes's Essay

      Open Document