对我来说真理是宝贵的……我宁愿正确而孤独也不愿错误地和大多数人在一起……坚持这里展示的观点给我带来了我周边人群的嘲笑和蔑视还有奚落。我被看成古怪，陌生，与众不同……但是真理就是真理，即便全世界排斥它并且反对我，我也依旧坚持真理。
多么激动人心的话语。你可以想象作者正勇敢地面对众多的反对派意图强加给他狭隘的教条。在这个背景下，你几乎可以听到歌声唱起来“勇敢的人。”高高地站起来，勇敢的英雄。永远不要屈服！
但是等一会。作者是谁？他这样英勇地维护的观点到底是什么？他的名字是“”。刚才的引用来自于他写于1931年的小册子。观点是——你准备好了吗？——地球是平的。
人们通常会认真地接受？他们的观点。但是今天很多人充满特别的激情信奉他们的观点。“我有权利坚持我的观点”和“每个人都有资格坚持自己的观点”成了常用的表达方式。如果质疑别人的观点你可能会听到，“哦，这是我的观点”。言下之意就是“不再讨论了”。
这是合理的看法吗？挑战别人的观点是否不合适？这取决于讨论的问题是什么类型的。如果这是喜好的问题，那么标准就是不必强求的个人偏好。如果阿格尼丝认为雷金纳德英俊而莎莉不同意，那就没有任何有意义争论的基准。同样，如果拉尔夫对一辆有黄铜丝的轮毂罩和紫色的内饰的卡马洛十分痴迷，卡拉却厌恶它。有些人在热狗上放番茄酱，而另一些人更喜欢芥末或调味汁，也许就在此时此刻，某个地方，有人正在用蛋黄酱、蓝莓或芽甘蓝泥厚厚地涂在热狗上。那又怎么样？差异万岁！
然而，考虑到“意见”这个词用法特别差异：一家报纸报道说，最高法院在一个有争议的案件中发表了自己的意见。很显然，法官们没有陈述他们的个人偏好，也不会有他们的喜好或者厌恶。他们陈述了深思熟虑的判断，这是他们经过全面调查和考虑后，努力达到的。
在批判性思维的语境中，“意见”一词指的是判断的表达，而不是喜好的表达。在一些案例中，不幸的是，某人是表达喜好还是判断并不清晰。当你们离开电影院时，一个朋友可能对你说，“这电影真棒”，这可能意味着“我喜欢它”或者“它达到了很高的电影拍摄水平”。如果她只是说她喜欢这个电影，而你不喜欢，那分歧就是个人喜好，这个无法争辩。但是，如果她做到是美学上的判断，你就可以合理的挑战她，指出这部电影没有符合的特别的电影标准。
每个人都有权利表达自己的意见吗？在自由的国度，这不仅仅是允许的而且是被保障的。比如，在大不列颠还有平面地球团体。就如名字所示，这个组织的成员相信地球不是球型而是平面。在这个国家，我们每个人都有自由对于任何事情，随自己乐意采取奇幻的态度。到电话接线生说，“开始的三分钟费用是95分”，你可以回应，“不，不是的，——应该是28分”。当服务站的侍者提醒你，“你的邮箱用掉了1/4”，你可以回复，“错了——还有3/4”。
当然，自由地拥有一个意见并表达出来不能保证有益的结果。接线生可能会挂断你的电话，服务站的侍者可能会不高兴。
按照我们的意见行事甚至带来不好的结局。想想那对加州夫妇将他们十一岁糖尿病的小孩交付给信仰治疗师的案例。他们的观点中，确信治疗师已经治好了这个小孩，他们将胰岛素丢掉了。3天后，小孩死掉了。这对父母依旧对信仰毫不动摇，表达他们的观点，认为上帝会将小孩从死神中挽救回来。警察逮捕了他们，罪名是过失杀人。在这些事情上的原则既清楚又合理：只有当我们在按照我们意见行事不会伤害到别人的时候才有自由。
原文：
How Good Are Your Opinions?59-60
To me truth is precious. . . . I should rather be right and stand alone than to run with the multitude and be wrong. . . . The holding of the views herein set forth has already won for me the scorn and contempt and ridicule of some of my fellow men. I am looked upon as being odd, strange, peculiar. . . . But truth is truth and though all the world reject
it and turn against me, I will cling to truth still.1
Stirring words, those. You can envision their author bravely facing legions of reactionaries intent on imposing their narrow dogmas on him. In the background you can almost hear a chorus singing “Stout-Hearted Men.” Stand tall, brave hero. Never give in!
But wait a minute. Just who is the author? And what exactly is the opinion he is valiantly defending? His name is Charles Silvester de Fort. The quotation is from a booklet he wrote in 1931. And the opinion is—are you ready for this?—that the earth is flat.
People have always taken their opinions seriously, but today many people embrace their opinions with extraordinary passion. “I have a right to my opinion” and “Everyone’s entitled to his or her opinion” are common expressions. Question another person’s opinion and you’re likely to hear, “Well, that’s my OPINION.” The unspoken message is “Case closed.”
Is that a reasonable view? Is it inappropriate to challenge the opinions of others? The answer depends on the kind of issue involved. If it is a matter of taste, then the standard is the undemanding one of personal preference. If Agnes finds Reginald handsome and Sally disagrees, there’s really no basis for a meaningful dispute. Ditto if Ralph drools over an orange Camaro with brass wire hubcaps and purple upholstery and Carla is repulsed by it. Some people put catsup on hot dogs, while others prefer mustard or rel- ish, and perhaps at this very moment someone, somewhere, is slathering a hot dog with mayonnaise or blueberries or pureed brussels sprouts. So what? Vive la différence!
However, consider this very different use of the term opinion: A news- paper reports that the Supreme Court has delivered its opinion in a controversial case. Obviously, the justices did not state their personal preferences, their mere likes and dislikes. They stated their considered judgment, painstakingly arrived at after thorough inquiry and deliberation.
In the context of critical thinking, the term opinion refers to expressions of judgment rather than to expressions of taste.* In some cases, unfortunately, it is not clear whether someone is expressing taste or judgment. A friend might say to you, as you leave a movie theater, “That was a wonderful film,” which could mean “I liked it” or “It meets a very high standard of cinematography.” If she is merely saying she liked it, and you didn’t, the disagreement would be over personal taste, which is pointless to debate. However, if she is making an aesthetic judgment, you could reasonably challenge her, citing specific film standards the movie failed to meet.
Is everyone entitled to his or her opinion? In a free country this is not only permitted but guaranteed. In Great Britain, for example, there is still a Flat Earth Society. As the name implies, the members of this organization believe that the earth is not spherical but flat. In this country, too, each of us is free to take as bizarre a position as we please about any matter we choose. When the telephone operator announces, “That’ll be ninety-five cents for the first three minutes,” you may respond, “No, it won’t—it’ll be twenty-eight cents.” When the service station attendant notifies you, “Your oil is down a quart,” you may reply, “Wrong—it’s up three.”
Being free to hold an opinion and express it does not, of course, guarantee favorable consequences. The operator may hang up on you, and the service station attendant may respond unpleasantly.
Acting on our opinions carries even less assurance. Consider the case of the California couple who took their eleven-year-old diabetic son to a faith healer. Secure in their opinion that the man had cured the boy, they threw away his insulin. Three days later, the boy died. The parents remained unshaken in their belief, expressing the opinion that God would raise the boy from the dead. The police arrested them, charging them with manslaughter.2 The law in such matters is both clear and reasonable: We are free to act on our opinions only as long as, in doing so, we do not harm others.
