[flagged]
My philosophy is that it’s still useful to give an opinion on something that interest you, even if it is probably wrong. If I am wrong, someone can correct me and I learn.
Also I suspect admitting ignorance leads to replies arguing in better faith since a discussion isn’t adversarial (I admit I’m not married to my opinion because I’m ignorant)
“There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.”
Absolutely nothing wrong with forming opinions in the absence of deep understanding. We do it all the time. It can be fun and usefully provocative to engage in discussions as an interested but ill informed outsider. Providing first principles objections can even force people to question their assumptions when engaging or explaining.
But, and it's a huge but - expressing a broad opinion on an issue, when knowing nothing about it - as opposed to say asking a good faith question - isn't particularly useful to anyone.
I think Asimov would disagree with your interpretation. “I believe that every human being with a physically normal brain can learn a great deal and can be surprisingly intellectual. I believe that what we badly need is social approval of learning and social rewards for learning. We can all be members of the intellectual elite and then, and only then, will a phrase like "America's right to know" and, indeed, any true concept of democracy, have any meaning.”
What level of expertise do you think is required to comment on something? Would you consider yourself well versed in Internet ethics?
Also, your comment ironically expresses a broad opinion instead of asking good faith questions.
Social sciences, economics, and medicine are relatively immature (hundreds of years versus thousands) compared to the hard sciences. These fields all apply the scientific method to the best degree available and the subject matter is pretty complex therefore results are difficult to reproduce. They could do a better job at self-regulation, but maybe that's part of its maturation process.
Humans with their personalities and motivations are harder to "science".
Soft fields are definitely harder to research, but instead of acknowledging this, many soft researchers ignore epistemological limits to make their research sound ‘harder.’
A good example is this psych researcher deriving equations of emotion based on fluid mechanics [O]. Somehow people in these fields don’t understand and/or care and allow this bullshit to continue.
I think many or most soft research programs are currently in “degenerate” territory (Lakotos)