There is an article in The Conversation that attempts to disprove the notion that people are "entitled to their opinions." That is, people have a right to believe whatever they wish. I think this article is interesting and worth a read. However, I have trouble accepting the strength of its argument. I think this passage sums it up:
But if ‘entitled to an opinion’ means ‘entitled to have your views treated as serious candidates for the truth’ then it’s pretty clearly false. And this too is a distinction that tends to get blurred.
This makes sense to me. If we define "entitled to an opinion" in this way, then it is trivial that not everyone has the expertise necessary to form an opinion that is a serious candidate for the truth. A vaccines-cause-autism promoter with no medical credentials is not a candidate for the truth like a doctor is.
However, how can I disprove that there exists an inherent privilege (an entitlement) to believe whatever you want? It would be an argument from ignorance to say that you cannot prove that there exists such a privilege, so such a privilege does not exist.
My approach was to use an indisputable example: 1+1=2.
(0) Let us assume that anyone has the right to have any opinion.
(1) If it is permissible to have any opinion, then anything can be debated.
(2) It is impossible to dispute
1+1=2because it has been proven.
(3) Things that are indisputably true––that simply are––cannot be debated, so there cannot be differing opinions on them.
(4) This is a contradiction of (0) and (1) (which follows from (0)).
This proof feels flimsy, but I cannot pin point exactly where the weak link is.
Where is the weak link in my argument? Does an alternative, stronger argument exist?
I am new to this site, so any recommendations (especially for tags) would be much appreciated!