3 ms·

This is actually pretty close to how I personally define a "professional": A professional is someone whose work can only be judged by other professionals of the

This is actually pretty close to how I personally define a "professional": A professional is someone whose work can only be judged by other professionals of the same domain. Obvious failure modes are exempted. Anyone can tell you about a bad bridge after it has failed. But it would take a bridge engineer to tell you that before it fails. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8960822#8963307 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8960822#8963307

peterwwillis 10y ago
Your definition would include tradesmen and craftworkers, then, who are not strictly professionals. Anyone can work in wood long enough to say "That wooden bridge looks like it'll hold X people," and not have any way of conveying how they came to that conclusion, because they didn't learn via a means of studying a specific body of work that can be measured and accredited. Without this distinction, many professions would not exist. https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/The_architectural_profession https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/The_architectural_... Also, your definition includes itself as part of its own definition, which is a circular definition fallacy.
- jdmichal 10y ago
  > Your definition would include tradesmen and craftworkers, then, who are not strictly professionals. According to what definition? > Anyone can work in wood long enough to say "That wooden bridge looks like it'll hold X people,"... I severely doubt that, given the complexity of trussed bridge designs [0]. There's a lot more to it than how much weight a 4-by-4 can support. > ... and not have any way of conveying how they came to that conclusion... If you can't transfer knowledge in a way that other people can independently verify, you're working in magic. If such a transfer is possible, but simply not possible for a particular person because they lack the tools, then that's a professional failing. For some reason, this state seems acceptable to you when we're talking about physics and complex loads. But could you imagine a doctor describing the appendix as "that thing sticking out where the long thin squiggly bit meets the short thick squiggly bit"? > Also, your definition includes itself as part of its own definition, which is a circular definition fallacy. You can't just throw out "circular definition is fallacy" and dismiss the idea. That itself is a fallacy -- "argument from fallacy". [1] Yes, I use the word "professional" twice, but that's not necessarily a circular definition and especially not necessarily a fallacy. First, the two "professionals" are not the same person. The first mention of "professional" is an individual, while the second mention is a group. What I did is tie membership of a group to a conditional ability which is dependent on the group itself. However, I did cheat a little bit. Because what I did not define is the individual ability necessary to meet that conditional. Because, of course, that changes depending on what group of professionals we are discussing. For backup, let's look at a definition of malpractice [2]: > a dereliction of professional duty or a failure to exercise an ordinary degree of professional skill or learning by one (as a physician) rendering professional services which results in injury, loss, or damage In other words, malpractice is a professional doing something which such a professional should not do... Because the mere fact of a person being a professional implies that they should know better. It's this same logic that I am using: A professional is someone who acts in a professional capacity, and understands the practices of such profession, and thereby is capable of judging whether another person understands and acts in a professional capacity. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truss_bridge#Truss_types_used_in_bridges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truss_bridge#Truss_types_used_... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy [2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malpractice https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malpractice
  - peterwwillis 10y ago
    > According to what definition? The dictionary's. > You can't just throw out "circular definition is fallacy" and dismiss the idea. Your definition was illogical, and I dismissed it, so yes, I can.
    - jdmichal 10y ago
      Really? I put the effort into that response and this is all you have? I'm pretty sure the correct reaction on my part here is: Good day, sir.
fulldecent 10y ago
I like your definition better than "a trade that requires paying a fee to a local bureaucracy."

peterwwillis 10y ago

Your definition would include tradesmen and craftworkers, then, who are not strictly professionals. Anyone can work in wood long enough to say "That wooden bridge looks like it'll hold X people," and not have any way of conveying how they came to that conclusion, because they didn't learn via a means of studying a specific body of work that can be measured and accredited. Without this distinction, many professions would not exist. https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/The_architectural_profession https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/The_architectural_... Also, your definition includes itself as part of its own definition, which is a circular definition fallacy.

jdmichal 10y ago
> Your definition would include tradesmen and craftworkers, then, who are not strictly professionals. According to what definition? > Anyone can work in wood long enough to say "That wooden bridge looks like it'll hold X people,"... I severely doubt that, given the complexity of trussed bridge designs [0]. There's a lot more to it than how much weight a 4-by-4 can support. > ... and not have any way of conveying how they came to that conclusion... If you can't transfer knowledge in a way that other people can independently verify, you're working in magic. If such a transfer is possible, but simply not possible for a particular person because they lack the tools, then that's a professional failing. For some reason, this state seems acceptable to you when we're talking about physics and complex loads. But could you imagine a doctor describing the appendix as "that thing sticking out where the long thin squiggly bit meets the short thick squiggly bit"? > Also, your definition includes itself as part of its own definition, which is a circular definition fallacy. You can't just throw out "circular definition is fallacy" and dismiss the idea. That itself is a fallacy -- "argument from fallacy". [1] Yes, I use the word "professional" twice, but that's not necessarily a circular definition and especially not necessarily a fallacy. First, the two "professionals" are not the same person. The first mention of "professional" is an individual, while the second mention is a group. What I did is tie membership of a group to a conditional ability which is dependent on the group itself. However, I did cheat a little bit. Because what I did not define is the individual ability necessary to meet that conditional. Because, of course, that changes depending on what group of professionals we are discussing. For backup, let's look at a definition of malpractice [2]: > a dereliction of professional duty or a failure to exercise an ordinary degree of professional skill or learning by one (as a physician) rendering professional services which results in injury, loss, or damage In other words, malpractice is a professional doing something which such a professional should not do... Because the mere fact of a person being a professional implies that they should know better. It's this same logic that I am using: A professional is someone who acts in a professional capacity, and understands the practices of such profession, and thereby is capable of judging whether another person understands and acts in a professional capacity. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truss_bridge#Truss_types_used_in_bridges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truss_bridge#Truss_types_used_... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy [2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malpractice https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/malpractice
- peterwwillis 10y ago
  > According to what definition? The dictionary's. > You can't just throw out "circular definition is fallacy" and dismiss the idea. Your definition was illogical, and I dismissed it, so yes, I can.
  - jdmichal 10y ago
    Really? I put the effort into that response and this is all you have? I'm pretty sure the correct reaction on my part here is: Good day, sir.

fulldecent 10y ago

I like your definition better than "a trade that requires paying a fee to a local bureaucracy."