This is not a democracy and your opinion is skeletal

[Ferno]

http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the ... expertise/

This guy hits on a few good points, like why blogs shouldn't be considered as source material, celebrities should be ignored and disagreement isn't derision.

[vision]

That was a good read. And then I read some of the articles on that site and found the authors making all the same mistakes Nichols pointed out. Irony! I wonder how many people will focus on some buzzwords they see in the article, assume it is written for them, and feel proud.

[Will Robinson]

too bad we can't clone his perspective and implant it on anyone who gets elected to office above dog catcher. And every one who thinks they are an editor, publicist or journalist.

[Spidey]

Well, I can relate to what the guy is saying for sure, In my field before the computer artwork supplied to my business was most always provided by professionals, with the advent of the computer the majority of artwork I receive is now produced by amateurs, that have no idea of how to submit proper color separations, understand the difference between B&W and grayscale, Raster and vector, DPI vs. total pixels…etc.

In fact, with every kid and a computer doing “artwork” my job has become much harder.

But I tend to disagree with his opinion on opinions…yes some opinions hold more weight than others, but I still believe that all opinions are valid, as such…just opinions.

People tend to confuse “professional opinions” with ordinary opinions, and that is where the problem comes in IMHO.

But everyone still has a right to an opinion.

So the question as it relates to this board is…

Does a bunch of laymen have the right to discuss anything, because we sure as hell don’t have any “experts” on the subjects we tend to discuss?

[Ferno]

Does a bunch of laymen have the right to discuss anything, because we sure as hell don’t have any “experts” on the subjects we tend to discuss?

yes, but the line should be drawn at any non-vetted sources and the "university of google". which means blogs and op-eds are out.

[Will Robinson]

Does a bunch of laymen have the right to discuss anything, because we sure as hell don’t have any “experts” on the subjects we tend to discuss?

yes, but the line should be drawn at any non-vetted sources and the "university of google". which means blogs and op-eds are out.

Some people refuse to accept even multiple reputable sources....

and some people post one word responses to comments: "Proof"

so the irony is clouding up in this thread already.

[woodchip]

The problem is you can have 10 expert "opinions" and none of them will agree. So is a pro opinion really any better than a laymans?

[Ferno]

The problem is you can have 10 expert "opinions" and none of them will agree. So is a pro opinion really any better than a laymans?

when they have the experience in the field to make a sound opinion, yes.


will: did you read the article? or did you just skim it?

[Will Robinson]

I read it. What about my comment makes you ask?

[Ferno]

It was simply to clarify.

[roid]

The problem is you can have 10 expert "opinions" and none of them will agree. So is a pro opinion really any better than a laymans?

This.

Consensus within an expertise is what gives authority to the expertise' membership. If medical doctors all recommended vastly differing opinions on treatment, i wouldn't respect medical doctors.

I don't know how rigorous most fields of expertise are. I do partially blame the media for this, their ridiculous insistence of telling both sides of the story (even if they have to truck in someone in a straight-jacket to find the other side) confuses public-society's understanding of who's worth listening to. It's a difficult skill, analyzing people's given titles & reading the media fine-print for clues as to if someone being interviewed as an expert on TV is actually an authority or not.
I consider myself pretty good at decoding stuff regarding actual real medical doctors & scientists, but it's pretty sad that i need to be so sharp and cynical to keep up, it takes a lot of my energy (and it's a bit socially damaging, i'm absolutely terrible to watch TV with). As far as i'm concerned: vetting the authority of potential experts should be the media's responsibility - not mine. And this failing on their part makes me angry.

The article author is an expert on social science and policy. As far as any of us laymen can tell, agreements within this field are lacking, coz from what we can see the reality of politics is an irrational partisan clusterfuck mess. But again... maybe the media is at fault. I honestly can't tell you if social science and policy academics/experts are on TV much; when someone is on tv my naieve base instinctual reaction is that they probably are an expert. But in reality they're more likely to be a fringe nutter who's been put on TV to create stir up drama, it takes some energy for my brain to remind me of this.

i'd like to finish this post with a shoutout to all the experts i sometimes see talking about better defending their fields' reputations from damaging wackos. It's a thing, they're often apologetic about it. I'm actually surprised the article didn't mention it.
Basically, i think the article's author should place some blame on himself and his own field(s) for sitting back and allowing self-proclaimed-expert wackos in the media to chip away at the respect his field (probably) deserves. He needs to get out there and defend society.
When some asshat is on TV spouting nonsense, I want to see him calling in to remind viewers that experts in his field do not hold these fringe opinions. But do we see that? Nope. Your move Tom.

(ps: the author's name is Tom)

[Spidey]

When I was coming up, you had to have 15 years of actual on the job experience to get “expert” status.

Nowadays it seems all you need to do is some reading on the subject…and bingo…you’re an expert.

Can’t even find that definition of the term anymore.

Nowadays when I here someone call themselves an expert…I just laugh, its an almost useless term.

[Tunnelcat]

Well, I can relate to what the guy is saying for sure, In my field before the computer artwork supplied to my business was most always provided by professionals, with the advent of the computer the majority of artwork I receive is now produced by amateurs, that have no idea of how to submit proper color separations, understand the difference between B&W and grayscale, Raster and vector, DPI vs. total pixels…etc.

.....In fact, with every kid and a computer doing “artwork” my job has become much harder.

Hmmmm. Kind of like the software companies in the Silicon Valley. A bunch of uneducated snots putting out sloppy code, calling it a product and making millions off of it.

And there sits the problem. Easy money with little effort on education and learning. But that's our new economy, isn't it? Make money above all else. Then we've got the public defunding of the universities and colleges, which will eventually result in only the privileged being able to afford a degree, and most of the time, the privileged are the wrong ones to get that degree, which leaves out the chance of finding those smart people from the main population and obtaining the best and brightest to run our businesses and government.

[Burlyman]

In other words, common sense is not so common. Thanks, Fern-ho.