Everyone's entitled to his own opinion

One of the problems with institutional education today is that it encourages students to express their thoughts on topics about which they cannot possess enough information to form an educated opinion.

Properly, students will be taught that there are three types of informational statements that can be made:

Facts, which are direct evidence.

Opinions, which are derived from evidence through argumentation.

And tastes, which are simple statements of preference.

These three categories are different, and each bear different burdens of proof.

Facts must be demonstrably true, and if demonstrably true, they can not be agenda-laden, unto themselves. If a person presents facts that a greater percentage of African Americans are below the poverty line than whites or that English language proficiency is positively linked to income, these facts cannot be racist merely because they are unpleasant.

Opinions must be supported by facts and are subject to bias and agenda, which everyone posesses. "Because a greater percentage of African Americans are below the poverty line than whites, we should give African American families greater public assistance" is one opinion. Another is "Because a greater percentage of African Americans are below the poverty line than whites, we should encourage African American women to have more abortions."

Tastes don't have to be supported by anything at all, though they usually reflect opinions. "I think African American culture is nice" is a statement of taste.

But in modern textbooks, these distinctions are more often than not deliberately erased. The result is, with unintentional irony, called "critical thinking."

A typical assignment in a geography textbook might have a fluffy piece about, say, Inuit whaling or municipal solid waste facilities or biodiesel. It will be a topic fraught with complexity, often with many far-reaching cultural, historical, legal, economic, and/or scientific ramifications, which are crammed down into a chirpy little one-page essay that doesn't even begin to touch on the issues at stake.

Then the student is asked to write a paragraph or a paper about what they think on the topic.

This creates two simultaneous delusions:

First, it deludes students into thinking that an uniformed opinion is worth the paper it's written on. Today's students believe that they are entitled to have opinions on anything, just because they can, as a kind of inborn righ of free speech. They see no need to learn about something before drawing a conclusion about it.

These students--and ex-students, as adults--will write a diatribe on something that they will then turn around and admit that they know nothing about moments later. This does not shame them. They see no problem with making a statement in ignorance. They had an opinion that was sincerely held, and they expressed it, so they see nothing to be ashamed of.

Second, it prevents students from evaluating what information is needed to make a judgment. Not only are students perfectly comfortable with spouting the most comfortable opinion about any subject with no regard to gathering evidence, they also do not and cannot evaluate anyone else's opinion on the basis of their own research or the other person's support.

It gets more extreme, still. These students will actually get irritated, angry, even, at a demand for support for their opinions, nor will it occur to them to ask another person for evidence for their statements. If given evidence, they view it as equal to any other vague expression of opinion. When given a reasoned argument and asked to respond in kind, these students lash out emotionally or retreat in confusion.

They have been methodically trained to only feel, not think.

Opinions on very important matters, then, become no more than expressions of emotion in the students' minds. Therefore, these students can say, with a straight face, that no one can be right or wrong because the world is subjective. A disagreement with the consensus opinion of their peer group is a social assualt to them, not a statement of a rational argument. Facts that counter their position aren't persuasive but bigoted and hateful.

On the other hand, if you appeal to them emotionally, no evidence in the world can sway them from your cause. Reason has nothing in the world to do with it.