Holding an opinion about holding opinions is an ironic notion however as Samuel Johnson states "the obstinate man does not hold opinions; they hold him." One logically infers that a stubborn person cannot learn, know, or believe. A stubborn person lives; doomed by the first opinion they hear or see. These opinions often come from media or other people. Decisions about anything need data and reasoning to support one's decision. One gains this data through independent research or thought but not through parroting another's thoughts and opinions. This does not annul other people's opinions but affirms them by reaching the same conclusion from available data. This returns to the original question how does one form an opinion on holding opinions? To assert anything about opining and ignorance one must seek out the necessary data, in this case the definitions of the words themselves.
The data, the words in this case, obstinate defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "stubbornly adhering to an opinion" and opinion defined as "a judgment formed or a conclusion reached" help unfold the quote. These definitions lead to the conclusion that Johnson's quote "The obstinate man does not hold opinions; they hold him" nearly means that one who adheres too strongly to one's opinions, becomes locked-in one's thoughts. I take this to mean that one who clings too dearly to one's opinions looses focus on the topic. Acting instead as a defender of one's belief regardless of how ignorant it may be. Examples of this are prevalent today with people claiming Barack Obama is Muslim or the global climate has not changed. Despite all possible data to the contrary people still believe that they know better. So, do they know? Or do they merely believe since this information is not fact. To hold opinions one must know or understand the opinions and believe in them as well, but how does one distinguish between knowing and believing?
The Oxford English Dictionary defines knowing as "having actual knowledge or being extensively knowledgeable and well informed" and believing as "the cognitive process that leads to convictions." To have a conviction means the same as having an opinion and it logically follows that to hold an opinion one must understand the opinion. The difference between knowing and believing parallels the difference between empiricism and rationalism. Knowing can only occur through empiricism or inferring based on evidence. Believing occurs through rationalization or starting with a conclusion and working backwards to the data. To clarify rationalization works from a conclusion and empiricism works towards a conclusion. For example, I consider myself a scientist and on the first day of class Mr. Devlin pointed out that almost all objects were mostly space. To approach problems empirically one must use evidence such as the weight of electrons, protons, and neutrons and the area of each to infer that atoms are both small and "full" of space. Rationalization involves starting at the conclusion that objects posses more space than matter and justifying one's conclusion through data. Rationalization has bias, it starts seeking a certain answer and ignores all others, while empiricism infers only what is obvious from the data. Scientific facts should be provable both rationally and empirically. This means that rationalism and empiricism are not mutually exclusive but complementary. So it follows that an opinion is a rationalization or conclusion based on a fact. Where facts are empirically proven conclusions based on data or unconditionally true statements like: blue lies within the 475nm wavelength.
This means one cannot know an opinion, one only believes it. If one treats opinions as rationalizations then one must also be willing to accept one's conclusions may be false. To escape the plight of the obstinate man one should approach life with a twinge of doubt. This will allow one to accept all opinions based on its individual properties not on its merit in comparison with one's own opinions.
