Mane clearly quotes there is a consensual view among qualified scientists about the cause of climate hang” (2011, p. 14), toxic greenhouse gases discharged by human activity being the leading cause. These toxins have been swelling climate change and will have a significant impact on society this includes the global economy as well as the environment (2011). Mane uses the evidence of 1500 or so leading climate scientists across the globe researching the topic and presenting numerous reports all in which came to the consensus that climate change is taking place.
Mane also introduces and adopts Naomi Restores as additional reliable proof, stating how she s a scientist had read the abstracts of 928 scientific papers all connecting to climate change, then publishing her conclusion and the agreement in Science (2011). ‘The opinions of those without true knowledge and understanding are worthless’ (2011, p. 16) declares Mane, in other words laypeople with no relevant expertise, degree or background couldn’t truly compare their opinions with the reliable findings regarding scientists.
Mane raises the fact that as a society it is up to individuals for an open debate or democratic decision on what to further do. The scientists have he knowledge though the difference or furthermore damage prevention is then up to society. Patrick stokes, lecturer in Philosophy at Decking University also writes an article on a similar topic, in a sense that Patrick debates as quoted “you are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to what you can argue for” (2012, p. 18). His main discussion or argument concludes of the false equivalence between experts and non-experts’ (2012, p. 18).
Stokes writes with the use emotive language as he states that it is “disrespectful to say whatever you want” and titles laypeople that argue against authority are “enthusiastic armatures” (2012, p. 18). Stokes confirms his argument as he drops 20th century philosopher Plat’s name, declaring that Plato distinguished between opinion and common belief. Stokes sides with Plato as he expresses “An opinion has a degree of subjectivity and uncertainty to it” (2012, p. 18), Stokes believes you are not entitled to your opinion unless you have the expertise background to do so, otherwise you can only argue for it.
To back up his argument Stokes uses Merry Dorky as an example. Merry being the leader of the Australian Vaccination Network though she stands as anti-vaccine. Merry declares and expresses her anti-vaccine attitude broadly on the Abs’s media watch. In response to Emery’s argument Stokes quotes media watch host Jonathan Holmes to prove his point, Holmes expressing ‘there’s evidence, and there’s bullets,” (2012, p. 19). As Merry has no medical qualifications, someone like Merry such as the average person with no major degree actually has no entitlement to their opinion.
Especially if they cannot back themselves up. Nevertheless stokes writes in the Journal to prove his spite ‘No, you’re not entitled to your opinion’. Reading both of the articles it’s safe to say Robert Mane’s article was a lot more thorough and convincing. Reason being Mane wrote with the use of many persuasive techniques, his text used emotive language, evidence, repetition, exaggeration as well as reason and logic. Mane deeply emphasized on his argument when using scientific research and evidence to back him up. This enables readers to have the mentality of ‘If the experts say so, it must be true’.
Patrick Stokes’s article was somewhat convincing, though did not go into as much depth and detail tit little evidence. When Stokes did use evidence such as “Plato” he didn’t actually explain who Plato was and how he/she was relevant to his argument. Stokes’s article was more about his personal opinion, why he thinks laypeople shouldn’t be entitled to their opinion, whereas Mane wrote explaining scientific findings as well as scientists consensus. So who would you believe, someone explaining scientific research or someone explaining their point of view on people not being entitled to their own point of view?
Not only was Robert Manes article more convincing, it was also more reliable. This is due to the great amount of scientific and expertise evidence Robert Manes sourced, in comparison to the lack of evidence that was left out by Stokes. When reading Manes article, it immediately sounds factual, as Mane repetitively states the consensus of scientists and scientific research. He gives a great amount of evidence using the findings of scientists and even referencing one by ‘name. After providing the evidence Mane then explains why the article is true.
Not only was it the evidence Mane provided, though it was also the tone of his writing. Mane wrote is article using authoritative language as the overall tone comes across as strong, determined, convincing and true. On the other hand Decking University’s Patrick Stokes wrote his article convincingly though not certainly. There was doubt and there was not enough reliable sources to back Patrick up within his argument. When reading “No you’re not entitled to your opinion” (2012) It almost feels ASPI you are reading an article on Stokes’s opinion which vaguely contradicts the title and point Stokes is trying express.