3 ms·
> can only really be answered by actual scientific discussion between actual experts I fundamentally disagree with this. For one, who gets to decide who the 'a
by leshow 10y ago
> can only really be answered by actual scientific discussion between actual experts
I fundamentally disagree with this. For one, who gets to decide who the 'actual' experts are compared to the experts that aren't actually experts?
The stuff you're saying is specious; on the surface it looks plausible but it actually doesn't mean anything.
Anyone can develop expertise in a topic of interest if they follow it ardently and have good critical thinking skills. One obviously needs the ability to read and comprehend more than just an abstract, but that's not what separates an 'expert' from an 'actual expert' anyway.
- skybrian 10y agoOh, I totally agree that anyone can be an expert in principle, and yes, you can even be self-taught, but you do have to do the work. On most subjects in the news, we don't study and have no real-world experience. We don't even pick up the phone and talk to people like reporters do. So, we should admit (to ourselves and others) when we didn't actually study anything, we're just borrowing other people's analyses that we read online. One way I do that is by sharing links. One of the ways you become an instant (not-really) expert is by relying too much on your supposed "good critical thinking skills." They exist but are overrated - it's not a substitute for studying or for real-world experience.