5 ms·

... how do you judge the nice explanation? Why wouldn't you want to hear from someone who studied/works in something over someone who is a random observer?

by Qworg 7y ago

senthil_rajasek 7y ago
I am saying trusting someone blindly because they are an expert is bad. A nice explanation is one that is backed by science in this case.
- ksk 7y ago
  And who determines what a "nice explanation" is, and what is or isn't backed by science? Another expert that you then have to trust? When dealing with technical topics that require deep study, unless you're some kind of genius with an abundance of free time, it is impossible to judge the quality of someones argument without you yourself also being a mini-expert in the same field.
  - senthil_rajasek 7y ago
    Specifically, for things like medical advice I look to the experts because medicine has been around for a few centuries and is backed with science. New concepts such as cryptocurrency I just walk away. My comments are about how a lot of people tend to put the person ( + credentials) before the soundness of their arguments. (edit: The scientific method is well documented. This is a good place to start if one wants to learn about it, https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Scientific_Outlook.html?id=eLe1Bav9NBcC&source=kp_book_description https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Scientific_Outlook....)
    - ksk 7y ago
      >My comments are about how a lot of people tend to put the person ( + credentials) before the soundness of their arguments. Ok fair enough. So what is the argument that you feel was not sound? And who said that they believed the argument was sound because of 'credentialism'? >(edit: The scientific method is well documented. This is a good place to start if one wants to learn about it, https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Scientific_Outlook.... https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Scientific_Outlook....) I don't know what a "well documented" philosophy book has to do with anything. That doesn't get you anywhere close to understanding deeply technical topics. Today's cutting edge science is deeply technical and you cannot gain knowledge simply by reasoning about it. You have to be an expert yourself to even begin to comprehend complex topics. A good educator can simplify a topic and make it approachable - like I suppose what Neil deGrasse Tyson does, but you are no closer to actually grasping the math or other details without going to grad school ... or putting in an equal amount of work at home using the library and self-study.

... how do you judge the nice explanation? Why wouldn't you want to hear from someone who studied/works in something over someone who is a random observer?

by Qworg 7y ago

... how do you judge the nice explanation? Why wouldn't you want to hear from someone who studied/works in something over someone who is a random observer?

senthil_rajasek 7y ago

I am saying trusting someone blindly because they are an expert is bad. A nice explanation is one that is backed by science in this case.

ksk 7y ago
And who determines what a "nice explanation" is, and what is or isn't backed by science? Another expert that you then have to trust? When dealing with technical topics that require deep study, unless you're some kind of genius with an abundance of free time, it is impossible to judge the quality of someones argument without you yourself also being a mini-expert in the same field.
- senthil_rajasek 7y ago
  Specifically, for things like medical advice I look to the experts because medicine has been around for a few centuries and is backed with science. New concepts such as cryptocurrency I just walk away. My comments are about how a lot of people tend to put the person ( + credentials) before the soundness of their arguments. (edit: The scientific method is well documented. This is a good place to start if one wants to learn about it, https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Scientific_Outlook.html?id=eLe1Bav9NBcC&source=kp_book_description https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Scientific_Outlook....)
  - ksk 7y ago
    >My comments are about how a lot of people tend to put the person ( + credentials) before the soundness of their arguments. Ok fair enough. So what is the argument that you feel was not sound? And who said that they believed the argument was sound because of 'credentialism'? >(edit: The scientific method is well documented. This is a good place to start if one wants to learn about it, https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Scientific_Outlook.... https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Scientific_Outlook....) I don't know what a "well documented" philosophy book has to do with anything. That doesn't get you anywhere close to understanding deeply technical topics. Today's cutting edge science is deeply technical and you cannot gain knowledge simply by reasoning about it. You have to be an expert yourself to even begin to comprehend complex topics. A good educator can simplify a topic and make it approachable - like I suppose what Neil deGrasse Tyson does, but you are no closer to actually grasping the math or other details without going to grad school ... or putting in an equal amount of work at home using the library and self-study.