informed opinions be taken seriously?
John Chafee once said:' opinions are valuable only when they're backed by thorough knowledge of the subject' .Though the words seem justified, they are wrong sometimes.When the experts give flippant opinions withouy careful thinking and thorough research,rather than following them, we should pay attention to others' opinions as well.
In the case of Dust Bowl, the informed Federal Agriculture Depatment made a tremendous mistake. In the Great Plain region, because the climate is dry there, the soil is vulnerable to wind erosion. To preserve the soil, farmers oftern limited plowing. However, from 1930 to 1935, the region rained untypically affluently.Thus, without any scientific research, the FAD concluded that the climate in the Great Plain had changed permanetly and encouraged farmers to increase plowing.Beliving in the FAD, farmers doubled the sizes of plowing. However, in 1936, the weather became extremely dry again and nearly 1/3 of the soil, extremely loose after over plowing ,was driven away,resulting in the Dust Bowl destroying 2/3 of the farmlands in Ohio and Kansas. In this case, even thogh FAD was more informed, it did not consider carefully and gave a rather flippant and absurd suggestion. Instead,the farmers, though not so informed, had developed a suitable work method. Had they adhered to their own idea rather than following informed FAD, they would not have suffered so much. Thus, this case showed the necessity of valuing the ideas of people not so informed.
In Pavolva's case, the authority gave fallible opinion again. Anna Pavolva, an inovative Russian ballerina, modified her shoes to save energy .However, many critics, esapecially Nicolas, the editor of 'ballet world' ,disproved her adaptation, arguing that her adaptation would not be accepted because it reduced the sophistication and loftness of ballet. Despite such critism, Pavolva persisted her adaption. Finally, out of critics' anticipation, Pavolva's adaptation was commonly applauded because with less energy consumed, she can dance more elegantly. In 1908, Pavolva became so popular that 18 coutries invited her to perform.In the case above, though the critics were probably more informed, they did not give a correct idea because instead of reliable research ,they based their ideas on the unsubstantiated assertion that audience only valued' sophisticated actions'. Fortuanetly, Pavolva persisted her right dea and gained success. Thus, we can see from Pavolva's success that sometimes we should question the authorities' ideas.
Even though experts gave fallible opinions in the cases above, when they presented their ideas after careful thinking, such ideas should be more emphasized than others. For example, after months' debate, many informed people such as Jefferson, Madison produced the Constitutio of US, proved to be a treasure for democacy. Arguably,the informed are more likely to give right ideas, but they can also make mistake without careful thinking. Thus, we should value all people's opinions when the informed gives flippant opinions.
John Chafee once said:' opinions are valuable only when they're backed by thorough knowledge of the subject' .Though the words seem justified, they are wrong sometimes.When the experts give flippant opinions withouy careful thinking and thorough research,rather than following them, we should pay attention to others' opinions as well.
In the case of Dust Bowl, the informed Federal Agriculture Depatment made a tremendous mistake. In the Great Plain region, because the climate is dry there, the soil is vulnerable to wind erosion. To preserve the soil, farmers oftern limited plowing. However, from 1930 to 1935, the region rained untypically affluently.Thus, without any scientific research, the FAD concluded that the climate in the Great Plain had changed permanetly and encouraged farmers to increase plowing.Beliving in the FAD, farmers doubled the sizes of plowing. However, in 1936, the weather became extremely dry again and nearly 1/3 of the soil, extremely loose after over plowing ,was driven away,resulting in the Dust Bowl destroying 2/3 of the farmlands in Ohio and Kansas. In this case, even thogh FAD was more informed, it did not consider carefully and gave a rather flippant and absurd suggestion. Instead,the farmers, though not so informed, had developed a suitable work method. Had they adhered to their own idea rather than following informed FAD, they would not have suffered so much. Thus, this case showed the necessity of valuing the ideas of people not so informed.
In Pavolva's case, the authority gave fallible opinion again. Anna Pavolva, an inovative Russian ballerina, modified her shoes to save energy .However, many critics, esapecially Nicolas, the editor of 'ballet world' ,disproved her adaptation, arguing that her adaptation would not be accepted because it reduced the sophistication and loftness of ballet. Despite such critism, Pavolva persisted her adaption. Finally, out of critics' anticipation, Pavolva's adaptation was commonly applauded because with less energy consumed, she can dance more elegantly. In 1908, Pavolva became so popular that 18 coutries invited her to perform.In the case above, though the critics were probably more informed, they did not give a correct idea because instead of reliable research ,they based their ideas on the unsubstantiated assertion that audience only valued' sophisticated actions'. Fortuanetly, Pavolva persisted her right dea and gained success. Thus, we can see from Pavolva's success that sometimes we should question the authorities' ideas.
Even though experts gave fallible opinions in the cases above, when they presented their ideas after careful thinking, such ideas should be more emphasized than others. For example, after months' debate, many informed people such as Jefferson, Madison produced the Constitutio of US, proved to be a treasure for democacy. Arguably,the informed are more likely to give right ideas, but they can also make mistake without careful thinking. Thus, we should value all people's opinions when the informed gives flippant opinions.
