Professors, PhDs, Lecturers and all Peer Reviewed Scholars!

[oldbadger]

Maybe three diverging views, held by experts* in their chosen field, can't all be right, but they can all have something of valuable to contribute to a debate. And if Debaters A, B, and C are widely read, I'm more likely to take their own opinions seriously. Sorry if that reads like intellectual snobbery.

* "An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made, in a very narrow field." - Niels Bohr (Nobel Prize winning physicist).

Yes....but who were these 'experts' paying attention to, and what had they been reading?
Regardless of how much was read, if a finding is wrong then it is wrong, and for that reason alone the very word 'expert' has no value.

I knew several expert-witnesses in my time and I chuckle at those memories now because there were so many impostors among the efficient, accurate and effective ones. In any court case that requires expert testimony both the prosecution and defence will bring forward such experts, both claiming to be widely read and both accepted by the judiciary as experts, but the lay jury (often guided by judge and barristers) has to decide which evidence makes most sense. Hopefully they won't just fall for the most lettered experts!

If you take the proposals of a scholar over a lay person without reviewing their proposals then you would, indeed, be a very prejudiced person. The only thing that could guide the decision of an open minded reviewer is the proposals. So your lay and academic's proposals need to be reviewed for what they have to offer.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

No no.....

OK

 

[oldbadger]

OK

Bye, Jayhawker......

 

[IndigoChild5559]

byI've been on websites and debating upon various issues for 12 years now.
No matter what the subject matter I've often been subjected to the opinions and findings of the above folks in situations where the debater didn't seem to have anything of their own to contribute.

While it is certainly a problem that too many people struggle to put things into their own words, appealing to the consensus of experts and replicated scientific studies is exactly the sort of thing people should be doing.

Joe might do very well at explaining in his own words why there are pink lunar elephants. His eloquence is not evidence that he is correct.

 

[oldbadger]

While it is certainly a problem that too many people struggle to put things into their own words, appealing to the consensus of experts and replicated scientific studies is exactly the sort of thing people should be doing.

The consensus of experts? You write as if the experts all agree on various questions. They don't.
You might as well tell us what you think and why.... really.
By all means tell us who taught you but please don't hide behind that person.

Joe might do very well at explaining in his own words why there are pink lunar elephants. His eloquence is not evidence that he is correct.

Pink lunar elephants?
What if Joe is explaining his opinions and offering to show how he arrives at his conclusions? Would you dismiss these because your conclusions are different or because he is a layman?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The consensus of experts? You write as if the experts all agree on various questions. They don't.

The word consensus doesn't mean 100%, no exceptions. It refers to general agreement. And yes there is a consensus among experts for a great many things. For example, it is the consensus of experts that our diets need a wide variety of fruits and vegetables.

Pink lunar elephants?
What if Joe is explaining his opinions and offering to show how he arrives at his conclusions? Would you dismiss these because your conclusions are different or because he is a layman?

It depends entirely the case Joe makes for his opinions. I never dismiss an opinion merely because it is different than mine. However, if they cannot make a case using good logic or actual evidence, then I don't pay much attention, even if they are very eloquent.

 

[oldbadger]

The word consensus doesn't mean 100%, no exceptions. It refers to general agreement. And yes there is a consensus among experts for a great many things. For example, it is the consensus of experts that our diets need a wide variety of fruits and vegetables.

Experts??? !!!! Now why didn't you tell us who those experts are?
Wouldn't 'dieticians' or your own chosen title be better?

It depends entirely the case Joe makes for his opinions. I never dismiss an opinion merely because it is different than mine. However, if they cannot make a case using good logic or actual evidence, then I don't pay much attention, even if they are very eloquent.

So you don't dismiss anybody's opinions just because they are laypeople. I don't either.
But so often you will notice that this does happen.
In the last 24 hours a member of RF has told me that I am wrong about something and to discover the reason why I must read a professor's book on that subject. Just that. A typical example of 'professor waving'. Most sad.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Experts??? !!!! Now why didn't you tell us who those experts are?
Wouldn't 'dieticians' or your own chosen title be better?

An expert is someone who has an advanced degree in the relevant field, or an recognized equivalent.

A dietitian is a person who memorizes what the experts determine and relays it to the public. The experts would be PhD scientists who use scientific method to determine what a good diet is for human beings.

So you don't dismiss anybody's opinions just because they are laypeople. I don't either.

No, I don't. If they are providing good logical arguments and providing scientific evidence, I'm quite open to their ideas. But that places the bar pretty high.

But so often you will notice that this does happen.
In the last 24 hours a member of RF has told me that I am wrong about something and to discover the reason why I must read a professor's book on that subject. Just that. A typical example of 'professor waving'. Most sad.

I have no problems with them referring you to a professor. The unreasonableness was due to the length of the reading required. And if they weren't willing to provide you with a summary of the professors position, along with quotes and citations to document this, then they fell down on the job.

I often run into people in here who say, "I'm right. Try reading the Bible." It's just laziness on their part.

 

[oldbadger]

An expert is someone who has an advanced degree in the relevant field, or an recognized equivalent.

Try:- a great deal of knowledge or skill.
Advanced degree? It's the ability and not the certificate, you know.

A dietitian is a person who memorizes what the experts determine and relays it to the public. The experts would be PhD scientists who use scientific method to determine what a good diet is for human beings.

Oh yes?
So what would an 'expert dietician' be called?
I think that you play with words!

No, I don't. If they are providing good logical arguments and providing scientific evidence, I'm quite open to their ideas. But that places the bar pretty high.

Scientific evidence?
That's just a jumped up term for knowledge, IC.

I have no problems with them referring you to a professor. The unreasonableness was due to the length of the reading required. And if they weren't willing to provide you with a summary of the professors position, along with quotes and citations to document this, then they fell down on the job.

No need.......all they need do is offer what they have learned, and with it's origins.
It's the writer's opinions that I'm interested in and not about how they squawk and parrot others.

I often run into people in here who say, "I'm right. Try reading the Bible." It's just laziness on their part.

Well you could......read the bible or pages of it. You could.
It needs investigatory ability but as the gospels are read (for example) they can give up so much information.

You wouldn't know it but I have read that during the afternoon of 'Palm Sunday' Jesus either went sightseeing in the Great Temple or he was carrying out a recce for future actions. It says so!

Try reading Mark 11:11. !!!

Now that's not being lazy but offering a citation. You see?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Try:- a great deal of knowledge or skill.
Advanced degree? It's the ability and not the certificate, you know.

The advanced degree is the proof of the knowledge and ability. Otherwise you would have every Tom, Dick, and Harry with an opinion claiming to be an expert.

Oh yes?
So what would an 'expert dietician' be called?

As I said, a dietician is not an expert. They simply memorize and communicate the knowledge that the real experts teach them.

Scientific evidence?
That's just a jumped up term for knowledge, IC.

While Scientific Method does determine knowledge, a person can have knowledge without using scientific method. For example, I am not a scientist, but I understand that the earth is billions of years old.

Well you could......read the bible or pages of it. You could.
It needs investigatory ability but as the gospels are read (for example) they can give up so much information.

You are missing the two points:
1. The remark assumes without reason that I have not read the Bible.
2. The onus is on the person making the claim to provide the examples and argument that make their case. They may not instruct their interlocutor to go looking for evidence.

 

[oldbadger]

The advanced degree is the proof of the knowledge and ability. Otherwise you would have every Tom, Dick, and Harry with an opinion claiming to be an expert.

So many degrees are gained by 'reading' facts and repeating them later. Sadly, many degrees do not assure ability.
You should take note of what 'Tom and all' tell in debate because they may have learned a very great amount.
You seem to be a believer in certificates.....it's becoming a religion...

As I said, a dietician is not an expert. They simply memorize and communicate the knowledge that the real experts teach them.

And that is how so many degrees are gained. And by parroting their lessons back so many they gain their tickets.

While Scientific Method does determine knowledge, a person can have knowledge without using scientific method. For example, I am not a scientist, but I understand that the earth is billions of years old.

This ∆∆∆ my point all along.
It's best not to use words like expert because there are so many impostors.

You are missing the two points:
1. The remark assumes without reason that I have not read the Bible.
2. The onus is on the person making the claim to provide the examples and argument that make their case. They may not instruct their interlocutor to go looking for evidence.

Yes! Indeed! This conversation has lead me to believe that you do not take interest in the books of the bible.
It could help you to debate theists. By reading Paul's letters I found out that (apart from repeating last supper, execution and resurrection repeatedly) he had no interest in anything that Jesus ever said or did...fact. So much for Jesus in Paul's Christianity.

And yes! Nobody should gain points by quoting a scholar without showing how the scholar got it right. But they don't.

And in answer to your last point, one 'academic' used to ask if other debaters had read 'Fred' and if they hadn't then he thought that they had no right to be debating in that conversation.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

So many degrees are gained by 'reading' facts and repeating them later.

A master's thesis is a substantial piece of academic writing that is typically required for completion of a master's degree. It is an original research project that demonstrates a student’s ability to conduct independent research, analyze data, and contribute to the academic field in a significant way.

A dissertation is a comprehensive research project required for completing a doctoral degree (Ph.D.). It represents the culmination of a candidate's research efforts and contributes new knowledge or insights to their field of study. It can be 300 pages or longer. It must contribute new, original findings or theories to the field. In addition to doing the research and writing it up, the student must defend it to a committee of experts.

So NO, these sorts of degrees are far, far from simply "reading facts and repeating them later. They are not handed out to people with no ability.

It's sounds to me like a case of jealousy. Your inflated view of yourself leads you to think that you can claim the same expertise as those who have actually put in the time, the thought, and the work.

This conversation has lead me to believe that you do not take interest in the books of the bible.

That's a pretty silly thing to say. I've spent practically my entire life studying the Bible. The Torah is especially dear to me. I think you need to pause before you try to read my mind any further, and don't consider a career in fortune telling.

It could help you to debate theists.

Are you really unaware that I believe in God? Do you just assume that anyone who disagrees with you is an atheist? Sir, I'm a religious Jew.

 

[oldbadger]

A master's thesis is a substantial piece of academic writing that is typically required for completion of a master's degree. It is an original research project that demonstrates a student’s ability to conduct independent research, analyze data, and contribute to the academic field in a significant way.

A dissertation is a comprehensive research project required for completing a doctoral degree (Ph.D.). It represents the culmination of a candidate's research efforts and contributes new knowledge or insights to their field of study. It can be 300 pages or longer. It must contribute new, original findings or theories to the field. In addition to doing the research and writing it up, the student must defend it to a committee of experts.

So NO, these sorts of degrees are far, far from simply "reading facts and repeating them later. They are not handed out to people with no ability.

That's better! I begin to see the real you, Indigo Child.
Previously you wrote: Post 50 :-nThe advanced degree is the proof of the knowledge and ability. Otherwise you would have every Tom, Dick, and Harry with an opinion claiming to be an expert.

I think I could have found an academic prejudice here.
It might be best if you don't try to debate Tom or Dick, IC....... they might win!
Only imposts claim to be experts....... those with true ability just explain their cases.
I completed my first Dissertation in 1965 (Wood Science) and again in 1994 (Commercial Detection) so I know a bit about dissertations.

It's sounds to me like a case of jealousy. Your inflated view of yourself leads you to think that you can claim the same expertise as those who have actually put in the time, the thought, and the work.

No, Indigo Child! Not me........ but you!

That's a pretty silly thing to say. I've spent practically my entire life studying the Bible. The Torah is especially dear to me. I think you need to pause before you try to read my mind any further, and don't consider a career in fortune telling.

Oh dear........ You've just shown me that you have probably NOT read Paul's letters. I was talking about such as Paul's letters!
My Post 51: ...................It could help you to debate theists. By reading Paul's letters .........................

Back to your Torah, IC, but I doubt that you are as intimately acquainted with that as you claim to be.

Are you really unaware that I believe in God? Do you just assume that anyone who disagrees with you is an atheist? Sir, I'm a religious Jew.

Are you really? The way you've spoken to me I rather thought your main religion to be Academia. Really......

 

[IndigoChild5559]

That's better! I begin to see the real you, Indigo Child.

If by "the real me" you mean that I value academic degrees because they verify a person's expertise? Then yes.

I think I could have found an academic prejudice here.

Of course I do. The better question is, why are you such an anti-intellectual?

Only imposts claim to be experts....... those with true ability just explain their cases.

That is a gross oversimplification. If Tesla is hiring experts in engineering, a person is very much going to list their degree on their resume.

I completed my first Dissertation in 1965 (Wood Science) and again in 1994 (Commercial Detection) so I know a bit about dissertations.

Funny, because everything you have said shows disrespect for such degrees.

Oh dear........ You've just shown me that you have probably NOT read Paul's letters.

There you go trying to read my mind again. Honestly, you need to give that up because you are terrible at it. I have studied the texts of a great many religions, and have spent a disproportional amount of time on the Christian texts. After all, most of the posters in these sort of forums are Christian. If I'm going to engage, I really need the necessary background.

So yes, I have indeed not only read the Pauline epistles, but have studied them. Being familiar with Paul's writings is NOT the same thing as agreeing with him.

Back to your Torah, IC, but I doubt that you are as intimately acquainted with that as you claim to be.

Because only people who agree with you have studied. LOL

Are you really? The way you've spoken to me I rather thought your main religion to be Academia. Really......

More attempts at mind reading.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Oh.... I have no time left for any kind of snobbery, but here my contempt is for 'expert' flag waving.
Debater A waves Fred's flag to gain ground in a debate, while Debater B waves Sid's, and Debater C waves Ned's.
Fred, Sid and Ned are all peer reviewed scholars.............but only one can be right, the other two are as wrong as the Lay... let's say ( I can't do it) !!!

Actually, there are very few academic subjects where only one can be right...especially in fields related to language and translations from ancient texts...

It's possible that all three could be right, in limited contexts or from certain perspectives. Or all three could be wrong. Or each partially right. Or some combination...

The problem comes when people who are not experts in a field try to use the works and views of academics to bolster their own uninformed, or partially informed, or even mostly informed, understanding of what the experts are talking about...

 

[oldbadger]

Actually, there are very few academic subjects where only one can be right...especially in fields related to language and translations from ancient texts...

It's possible that all three could be right, in limited contexts or from certain perspectives. Or all three could be wrong. Or each partially right. Or some combination...

For sure.

The problem comes when people who are not experts in a field try to use the works and views of academics to bolster their own uninformed, or partially informed, or even mostly informed, understanding of what the experts are talking about...

A problem? What problem?
Now....who exactly were the 'experts' in your perception within your above example?
And who (taking part) was not worth listening to?

Everybody who responds to a question is worth hearing if possible. The person who discards ideas because of their lifestyle or work may lose the correct answer to their problem.


What was the field of research?

 

[oldbadger]

If by "the real me" you mean that I value academic degrees because they verify a person's expertise? Then yes.

Wrong! Experience and ability verify best chance of success.

Academic degrees usually help launch a career.

Of course I do. The better question is, why are you such an anti-intellectual?

No no.. I'm anti academic bigotry.

That is a gross oversimplification. If Tesla is hiring experts in engineering, a person is very much going to list their degree on their resume.

Oh what fun!
Tesla hope/ed to employ various kinds of engineers...... Tesla never advertised for 'experts' methinks?

Get over that word, IC.

That gives me a good idea for a new thread. 'Electric Progress'. Or 'Lithium Safety'.

Funny, because everything you have said shows disrespect for such degrees.

I disrespect snobs, IC. Any kinds of snobbery.

So yes, I have indeed not only read the Pauline epistles, but have studied them. Being familiar with Paul's writings is NOT the same thing as agreeing with him.

Huh? I don't give Paul's letters any value at all in respect of Jesus the person. But to converse with Christians it's not a bad idea to read them.
Do look thru them again, some time.

Because only people who agree with you have studied. LOL

No. All these posts and you haven't learned a thing.
I just don't respect people who discard others because of their academic past, their job, their position in society, etc.

Your 'Tom, Dick, Harry' comment told me all I need to know.

More attempts at mind reading.

I wasn't bad at mind reading. I wrote many articles about it for an international professional security magazine.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Everybody who responds to a question is worth hearing if possible.

I think everyone has a right to their opinion, but some opinions are worth more than others. When a person backs up their opinion with good research and sound logic, their opinion carries far more weight than someone who just pulls stuff out of a hat.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Do look thru them again, some time.

My patience with your constant insults, condescension, and patronization is now officially used up.

 

[oldbadger]

I think everyone has a right to their opinion, but some opinions are worth more than others. When a person backs up their opinion with good research and sound logic, their opinion carries far more weight than someone who just pulls stuff out of a hat.

No. The opinions that are RIGHT are the winners.
So many apparently 'good' researches can be wrong.......

You'll learn .......