Is BAUT for Experts Only?

[astromark]

Without wishing to offend or cast dispersions upon the good character of some learnard fellow... Yes I am a amateur astronomer. While many of my friends found the need for 'higher education' I did not. , and still do not feel the need to do any such thing. In this regard I have made an observation that will not win favour with some... Some people are educated above there ability. They become pompous boring and pedantic to the extreme... One of my colleagues is most well known for over answering questions at the observatory... he freely admits to being a pompous git when answering school children's questions and has been witnessed actually frightening them away... One poor child asked of the moons gravity... hours passed and my friend was still dropping golf balls and feathers all about the place... 'arm waving till Christmas', I call it. So when I saw this question about the respective education levels of board members, I was tempted to respond. Its not what matters. A persons ability to inform others in a interesting and intelligent manner is. Education does not go there. I am not saying education is a bad thing. That is not true. , but knowing how to best use your education is perhaps more important.

[Fazor]

You know, if one feels the need to list their credentials, one can always put them in their signature line. That's where mine are (the savant part).

[Robinson]

I for one would like to know if I am dealing with a real or imaginary expert.

[captain swoop]

How would you tell? On a Forum like this anyone can claim anything.

It's the answers they give to questions or the info they offer that tells them. It's hard to bluff things out on BAUT.

[sohh_fly]

Are there any T.V. personalities that are expert's ?
JayU would classify as 1, Is there any more on any Field related to this forum?
Any1 here ever do any T.V for the learning channel's?

Also I'm an expert in my own right,which is...thinking of what it would be like to be expert.

[Robinson]

Almost everyone is an expert at something.

[Robinson]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

How would you tell? On a Forum like this anyone can claim anything.

Just having information (something easy to do these days) does not make one an expert.

Originally Posted by captain swoop

It's the answers they give to questions or the info they offer that tells them. It's hard to bluff things out on BAUT.

It is quite easy to bluff online, in fact, in bluffing, especially when you actually have good cards, it is the reaction, or lack of reaction, that often tells the true nature of the person responding. Experts, in my opinion, do not spend their time endlessly arguing with people on the Internet.

They argue in the real world.

I might be wrong, but many years of experience tells me the truly intelligent spend their energies doing real things, not burning away hours over something somebody said online.

This is changing, but a lot depends on what you mean by expert.

[Perikles]

Originally Posted by Robinson

Just having information (something easy to do these days) does not make one an expert.

I heard once that the expert is he/she who has made the greatest number of mistakes in the smallest field of study.

[grant hutchison]

Originally Posted by Robinson

It is quite easy to bluff online ...

The temptation is certainly there. But it's less easy to get away with it, in an environment where lots of people know lots of stuff. We've certainly seen a few bluffs called here at BAUT.

Originally Posted by Perikles

I heard once that the expert is he/she who has made the greatest number of mistakes in the smallest field of study.

It's certainly an effective (but time-consuming and sometimes dangerous) way to prune your decision tree. But when you let pilots and doctors do it, it's nice to have them in a simulated environment.

Grant Hutchison

[astromark]

I have been invited to receive a doctorate... obviously worthless.
For if it requires no effort or work then, its meaningless.
People whom claim intelligence are often exposed by there own actions... not to be.
The underlining trend to only listen to the proclaimed expert... foolishness.
As I have seen a Expert described as... X = the unknown factor. Spurt = A drip under pressure.
Sure the point is that yes we should respect the well considered observations of the well educated. The rantings of the fool are soon recognised as such. Your education is what helps you tell the difference. Can the word education be replaced with knowledge. Its not as clear as a doctrinaire would indicate. Can I even say that?
I tend to avoid those whom proclaim higher education. There reasoning is flawed.

[tdvance]

Originally Posted by Perikles

I heard once that the expert is he/she who has made the greatest number of mistakes in the smallest field of study.

One I like is, an expert is someone who has forgotten more than most people ever knew about a subject.

[Tobin Dax]

Originally Posted by Robinson

I for one would like to know if I am dealing with a real or imaginary expert.

I'm a complex expert.

[Kaptain K]

An expert is someone who has been called over 500 miles from home!

[captain swoop]

ex is a has been, spurt is a drip under pressure.

[Kaptain K]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

ex is a has been, spurt is a drip under pressure.

Alternate def:

X = unknown.
spurt is a sudden burst of speed.

Xspurt is an unknown sudden burst of speed.

[mugaliens]

Originally Posted by Kaptain K

Xspurt is an unknown sudden burst of speed.

I thought it was a former shampoo... ?

[stutefish]

This sidebar quest for experts and expertise reminds me of the fallacy of appeal to authority.

A person becomes a true expert in a field by having expertise in that field. He doesn't need credentials: He can simply demonstrate his expertise.

And instead of his audience relying on some third party to validate those credentials (leading us down the "who watches the watchmen" rabbit hole), each audience member can judge for themselves if he is an expert or not.

I don't think Jay Windley has ever relied on appeals to his own authority to make a case. He does cite his authority on certain subjects, and sometimes on that basis justifies his own personal disagreement with a particular claim. But when it comes time to make his own case, he sets his credentials aside and instead demonstrates the expertise that earned him those credentials.

As for each of us using our own judgement to evaluate demonstrations of expertise, I've found that if I'm not equipped to judge such demonstrations, I'm equally ill-equipped to judge somone's credentials. Most of the time, I'm much better equipped to judge the way a person makes their case and demonstrates their expertise, than I am to judge their credentials.

[geonuc]

Originally Posted by stutefish

As for each of us using our own judgement to evaluate demonstrations of expertise, I've found that if I'm not equipped to judge such demonstrations, I'm equally ill-equipped to judge somone's credentials. Most of the time, I'm much better equipped to judge the way a person makes their case and demonstrates their expertise, than I am to judge their credentials.

While that may be the case for you, it's not for me. I find that some people - not many - can talk a good story without knowing what they're talking about. In those cases, without some expertise of my own, my hogwash detector doesn't function well.

However, if someone says they have a PhD from MIT in the relevant field, have worked in that field for twenty years and have published peer-reviewed articles in Science, Nature or some equally respected journal, I'm going to set the sensitivity of my hogwash detector to low.

Credentials can be misleading, no doubt. But they do serve a purpose. Not that I'm in any way suggesting that BAUT get involved in that.

[captain swoop]

However, if someone says they have a PhD from MIT in the relevant field, have worked in that field for twenty years and have published peer-reviewed articles in Science, Nature or some equally respected journal, I'm going to set the sensitivity of my hogwash detector to low.

There's the Rub. I could claim the above.

Maybe your Hogwash Detector doesn't detect all Hogwash. Fortunately there are enough people on BAUT with the experience and knowledge to detect the Hogwash in the areas you do not.

[geonuc]

That there are many knowledgeable people in many fields here on BAUT is a fair point, and one of the reasons BAUT is so cool.

I suppose my objection to disregarding credentials stems from what I see as a misinterpretation of the 'appeal to authority' fallacy. That fallacy, as I understand it, stands for the notion that one cannot assert that an argument or statement made by an authoritative person is unchallengeable. It does not mean that more weight cannot, or should not, be placed on the statements of those who are credentialed in the field. Hence, in order to properly judge how much weight I should place on an assertion, it behooves me to know if they have relevant experience or training.

[Moose]

An argument being a logical fallacy doesn't necessarily make it wrong, but fallacy helps to define what evidence is required in order to satisfy it. To use a programming compiler metaphor, a fallacy is a warning, not an error.

An easy example is the slippery slope fallacy. Yoda's "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering", for example, is pure "slippery slope". On its own, the argument is insufficient. To satisfy the burden of proof, you need evidence to show that fear indeed does lead to anger, and so on. But until each step is covered, the argument is insufficiently supported.

In terms of the argument from authority fallacy, the fallacy takes the form: "I'm a Ph.D/Doctor/Engineer, so I'm right." Credentials speak to credibility, which speaks to persuasiveness. That is entirely valid, but it's not enough. At the end of the day, an argument stands on its own merits. That means evidence.

[geonuc]

Moose, we agree, mostly. I would differ in that if a well-credentialed person makes an assertion, I'll go with it (absent some doubt as to the credentials) until someone posts something that conflicts (unless that person is obviously off in left field). Then the assertion probably should be substantiated.

To do otherwise gets us into a position where no one can assert anything without citation. For example, if EtaC asserts something about the characteristics of fundamental particles, I'm going to assume it is correct unless someone else disagrees. I'm not going to ask for substantiation and I don't think any other non-expert here should either. In other words, unless properly challenged, EtaC's statement is enough for me.

[Fazor]

Originally Posted by geonuc

To do otherwise gets us into a position where no one can assert anything without citation. For example, if EtaC asserts something about the characteristics of fundamental particles, I'm going to assume it is correct unless someone else disagrees. I'm not going to ask for substantiation and I don't think any other non-expert here should either. In other words, unless properly challenged, EtaC's statement is enough for me.

I know who I "trust" here, and who I don't. Now, I don't take anything anyone says as unfailable. But there are certain members (actually, quite a few), who I won't dispute unless something I know personally (which isn't much) or something someone else says can demonstrate it to be false.

I see no need to list our credentials. If one wants to offer them as a reference to where their knowledge is coming from, then fine. I'll often say "we learned in the Academy . . . " when talking police issues, for instance, just to clarify that I'm getting my information from the training and work experience, rather than from an outsider's observation of police workings.

That doesn't make anything I say automatically true; my memory isn't the greatest, for one. And it's a biased credential. But it lets people know where I'm coming from. I think we all do that, when it's necessary or appropriate. Which is how I know what fields a lot of you work in.

And we're all smart enough to know that if someone makes the argument, "I know X because I've done Y", but has nothing else to back up what they're saying, that it might not be correct.

[Moose]

Originally Posted by geonuc

Moose, we agree, mostly. I would differ in that if a well-credentialed person makes an assertion, I'll go with it (absent some doubt as to the credentials) until someone posts something that conflicts (unless that person is obviously off in left field). Then the assertion probably should be substantiated.

I should clarify that I meant that it isn't enough in formal argument. If an engineer tells me that the two pillars in my parents' open basement are load-bearing and not optional, I have no problem taking his/her word for it.

If a contractor's apprentice tells me those same pillars can be removed safely, well, it goes against what a qualified engineer says, and goes against my own understanding of the physical world. A contractor's apprentice does not have the demonstrable credentials to override my own experience and skepticism. Not to mention the claim involves considerably higher stakes. Under those circumstances, I'm going to require considerable evidence (and probably _twice_ the insurance settlement in escrow, etched in a stone tablet signed in the blood of the apprentice.)

Ultimately, it comes down to how much personal investment is involved in accepting the claim. If you want to tell me you're 7'2" tall, I'll accept it, because doing so has no tangible effect on my life. If you want to tell me about this wonderful Saskatchewan beachfront property I can get for 'pennies on the dollar' if I write the cheque today...

[Robinson]

Originally Posted by Moose

Ultimately, it comes down to how much personal investment is involved in accepting the claim.

So true, in matters that actually effect one's life, pocketbook or peace of mind.

But what about concepts, theories, observations, conjectures and musings that will never ever matter in our real life?

[Moose]

Originally Posted by Robinson

But what about concepts, theories, observations, conjectures and musings that will never ever matter in our real life?

It's the main reason I don't get exercised over a desire to debunk ATMs, but I'll try very hard to keep my mother well clear from Oprah's sCAMs-of-the-Day.

ATMs really can't affect the real world. Not without first 'coming up with the goods' at some stage, and the peer-review system still works well in sorting out the real work from the trash. CTs, sCAMs, scams, those are dangerous because they can very easily get traction with the general public through promotion.

It's a matter of picking one's battles.

[Robinson]

I have to agree.

[Swift]

Originally Posted by Fazor

<snip>
I see no need to list our credentials. If one wants to offer them as a reference to where their knowledge is coming from, then fine. I'll often say "we learned in the Academy . . . " when talking police issues, for instance, just to clarify that I'm getting my information from the training and work experience, rather than from an outsider's observation of police workings.

That doesn't make anything I say automatically true; my memory isn't the greatest, for one. And it's a biased credential. But it lets people know where I'm coming from. I think we all do that, when it's necessary or appropriate. Which is how I know what fields a lot of you work in.

And we're all smart enough to know that if someone makes the argument, "I know X because I've done Y", but has nothing else to back up what they're saying, that it might not be correct.

I think we all have, to varying degrees, an ability to tell when someone is writing from some actual expertise, and when someone is not (though obviously we can be fooled).

I think this post from vonmazur is a good example of that. Now I don't know that he really has the expertise that he says he does (I don't really doubt it vonmazur, I'm just picking on you as an example), but it sure sounds like it. There is a level of detail here that just sounds like it is coming from someone who actually flew in this copter.

[Paul Beardsley]

Originally Posted by astromark

Without wishing to offend or cast dispersions upon the good character of some learnard fellow... Yes I am a amateur astronomer. While many of my friends found the need for 'higher education' I did not. , and still do not feel the need to do any such thing. In this regard I have made an observation that will not win favour with some... Some people are educated above there ability. They become pompous boring and pedantic to the extreme... One of my colleagues is most well known for over answering questions at the observatory... he freely admits to being a pompous git when answering school children's questions and has been witnessed actually frightening them away... One poor child asked of the moons gravity... hours passed and my friend was still dropping golf balls and feathers all about the place... 'arm waving till Christmas', I call it. So when I saw this question about the respective education levels of board members, I was tempted to respond. Its not what matters. A persons ability to inform others in a interesting and intelligent manner is. Education does not go there. I am not saying education is a bad thing. That is not true. , but knowing how to best use your education is perhaps more important.

Whereas it is undoubtedly true that some educated people are bores, they are likely to be bores despite their education, not because of it.

So when I saw this question about the respective education levels of board members, I was tempted to respond. Its not what matters. A persons ability to inform others in a interesting and intelligent manner is. Education does not go there.
What an incredibly wrong statement.

Education includes learning how to teach. Education includes learning how to express onesself. That means (among other things) using the correct words and the correct grammar - and it includes the recognition that these things are not niceties for pedants, but key elements to communication.

"So what if I used the wrong form of 'there/their/they're'?" says the I-don't-need-education types, "everyone knows what I mean." But the truth is, not everyone does. Many's the time I've read the words, been drawn up short, and gone back over the sentence trying to guess what the poster meant to write - and that's when I'm in a patient, tolerant mood. I'm more likely to declare, "This poster is illiterate!" and move on. Compare that with the writings of someone like Jay. He isn't merely an expert in his field - he's a communicator. He's written about some difficult topics, but I've never had to pick over his words trying to work out what the heck he was trying to say.

People without education - especially those who are proud of the fact - often end up being hoax believers or some other sort of conspiracy fantasists. Someone tells them, "The only thing you really need to know is, governments lie." And that's the easy route to the feeling of self-importance. Almost as bad is the dangerous levels of superficiality - "Hey yeah, the quantum theory, like, means that you can never know if a cat is really dead, and that means all of science is whatever you want it to be."

[SolusLupus]

Originally Posted by captain swoop

How would you tell? On a Forum like this anyone can claim anything.

It's the answers they give to questions or the info they offer that tells them. It's hard to bluff things out on BAUT.

I don't know, arguments about climate science seems to be one issue where "sounding like you understand" carries a lot of weight, even on the BAUT.