> It's fair to say that but it isn't the case that someone can have an worthwhile opinion of something they haven't tried
I disagree. I don't have to try hitting myself in the head with a hammer to have a reasonable basis to believe it would be a bad idea. There's not much point in having reasoning ability if you can't apply it to develop useful opinions on what is and isn't even worth trying.
Obviously, that's not to say that there aren't additional insights possible from direct experience, and that people sometimes apply prejudice rather than sound reasoning to present opinions on things they haven't tried, but its simply silly to say that people cannot have a worthwhile opinion on something they haven't tried.
There may be an "is -> isn't" or "can -> can't" issue in the line I quoted, but I don't think so -- the rest of the sentiment in that article seems to be a specific case where the poster believes that someone is making an error of offering an opinion without experience (which I agree is an error), which makes sense (though, I'd obviously argue, represents an overgeneralization from a valid example) if its supporting a generalization that opinions without experience are invalid, but, without some "but" or "on the other hand", etc., doesn't make a lot of sense if the thesis it goes with is that some such opinions are valid.
I disagree. I don't have to try hitting myself in the head with a hammer to have a reasonable basis to believe it would be a bad idea. There's not much point in having reasoning ability if you can't apply it to develop useful opinions on what is and isn't even worth trying.
Obviously, that's not to say that there aren't additional insights possible from direct experience, and that people sometimes apply prejudice rather than sound reasoning to present opinions on things they haven't tried, but its simply silly to say that people cannot have a worthwhile opinion on something they haven't tried.