I would disagree in many cases, and even consider it a potentially dangerous philosophy. Doesn’t this come close to veering into what WP says is a “well known

I would disagree in many cases, and even consider it a potentially dangerous philosophy. Doesn’t this come close to veering into what WP says is a “well known as a fallacy”? (and what we all learned in whatever class that was in college? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority). Does this fit your example: My first job out of school was as a developer on WordPerfect for Windows. In short order I came to believe there were strategic mistakes being made (not the mistakes we made in code, mistakes at the exec level), as if there were a bubble or echo chamber around certain decisions, and that these strategic errors were an existential threat to the company. Dozens of highly paid people working on OS/2 ports, and other non mainstream platforms. Not paying enough attention to performance even as it started to hurt product reviews, because Microsoft steadily invested tons of time into optimization. Many other similar things. I asked for sit downs with some execs to offer alternative viewpoints on a few of these issues as food for thought. They listened, and watched, a early 20’s kid who looked 18, articulate these points. Should I have not tried to be an “expert” with three months of experience? Should they have at least allowed a second, broader meeting with key people to air out contrarian ideas? Surely I wasn’t the only one who saw these things. Could they have avoided wiping a billion dollars in value off the books if they had more seriously listened to a more diverse set of opinions and ideas? To be clear, sometimes less experienced people come with crazy, clearly impractical, even arrogant ideas that are not fully thought through. These should be constructively criticized and usually dismissed. Just remember, it’s not that unusual for experienced professionals to do the same thing. How is experience relevant at all except probabilistically? Ideas and approaches speak for themselves. They either have merit or they don’t. Should we ignore someone who keeps talking about how he can make a strong case for redefining our fundamental knowledge of physics? I mean the hell he’s not even a physicist he’s just a patent clerk without a PhD (not 100% certain but if I recall correctly there were interesting results before that degree was earned). More than one person had a chance to listen and didn’t. Of course my experiences and biases over the years have lead to this opinion, but I will never dismiss out of hand an argument that at first glance seems to be made in good faith, and appears to have had careful thought put into it. Moreover, if the argument has these attributes, and is also contrary to what I believe while a being business critical.topic, I’m more likely to read or hear it, at least until I’m sure it’s not a perspective I have already thoroughly considered.