Knowledge

To what extent is it acceptable for someone to present an opinion on something of which they have no first hand knowledge? Specifically, if someone has an opinion about an author without having read any of their books and only having heard others speak about them, are they still entitled not only to an opinion about said author, but also for their opinion to be taken seriously? Alongside this, if we can have an opinion about something for which we cannot have first hand knowledge (e.g. the French Revolution) but only through information we have read in historical accounts, does this imply that we do not need first hand knowledge at all?

Comments

Thank you for your question. I would suggest that the "secondhand" opinions you are interested in might in some cases be justified; in others less so. Imagine for instance that I've read a good deal about environmental damage in China. I've never been there, and so have no firsthand experience of the situation, but I have read reputable sources of various kinds on the issue, and have done so at some length, making a point of seeking out different positions on the issue. In a case like this, I would suggest, it is acceptable for me to form an opinion on the issue in spite of having no firsthand knowledge.

By contrast, and all too often, people form secondhand opinions about issues on which they have done inadequate research. One only needs to listen for a few minutes to talk radio shows of various kinds, for instance, or user comments on online news sources, to see how many people form confident opinions on important issues (terrorism, economics, war, etc.) about which they are woefully ill-informed.

I would suggest that the issue here is not being firsthand or secondhand. Rather, I would suggest the issue is how well informed the person is who forms the opinion. Of course, even someone with firsthand knowledge of a situation can form an ill-considered opinion about it. (Think of someone who sees one person using food stamps at a grocery store to buy junk food, and then concludes that food stamps are always abused and should be banned.)

I would also suggest that in the case of authors, we tend to look down on people who make judgments without reading their books, because it seems rather lazy not to bother to do so. After, reading someone's book is a good deal easier than getting oneself to China! Again, about historical events, you're right to suggest that we can do no better than have secondhand knowledge. Whether or not we can *always* do without firsthand knowledge is a more controversial issue. I'd suggest, however, that again the issue is not so much whether our opinion is firsthand or not, but rather how well researched it is. If that's right, then so long as we do our "homework" on an issue, we can form justified opinions without needing firsthand knowledge. Obviously, exceptions include cases like knowing what a thing looks like, tastes like, sounds like and so on: In these cases there is no substitute for "being there."

Mitch Green

Read another response by Mitch Green

Read another response about Knowledge