I wholeheartedly agree with much of what is written, but in the spirit of the text here is a counter argument that I considered. I would be happy to hear others' opinion on it.
Perhaps a good reason for people to form and voice opinions (like voting for example) even when they generally don't know what they're talking about is what's dubbed "crowd wisdom": the idea that a group of almost clueless laymen can somehow miraculously come to a very good decision when grouped and averaged out outperforming experts. At least for some problems.
Perhaps the OP's suggestion that only well educated "experts" should voice there opinions robs society of this slow but powerful driving force?
Perhaps a good reason for people to form and voice opinions (like voting for example) even when they generally don't know what they're talking about is what's dubbed "crowd wisdom": the idea that a group of almost clueless laymen can somehow miraculously come to a very good decision when grouped and averaged out outperforming experts. At least for some problems.
Perhaps the OP's suggestion that only well educated "experts" should voice there opinions robs society of this slow but powerful driving force?