4 ms·

> Really? There's nothing in between expert level and being able to judge if data was shoehorned or was a natural fit? Only an expert in a specific field can de

by midev 5y ago

> Really? There's nothing in between expert level and being able to judge if data was shoehorned or was a natural fit? Only an expert in a specific field can determine if logical flaws exist? If there's possibly hidden variables impacting readings, or incomplete models? Generally, yes. If you don't work in the field, I doubt you can even read a single paper, let alone identify errors. > Has the scientific world become that black and white? You're either an expert or your opinion is not worthy of discussion? That's always been the case. But yes, if you are not an expert or knowledgable about a topic, your opinion generally does not mean anything. I know this is hard for people to hear. > I'm glad that of the many things I want to rant about, one I chose was the PCR cycles. Because the creator of that technology, Kary Mulis, specifically warned about it's misuse in that manner. Now for anyone just wandering into this mess going to search him for the first time - be warned, he did hold a very controversial opinion about another disease. But I don't think anyone could appeal to a higher authority on PCR testing at its core. Kary Mulis can have an opinion. You not just being an expert is repeating something you don't understand.

desine 5y ago
I don't think you're an expert of expertise so therefore I reject your analysis of expertism
- midev 5y ago
  There you go. Now you understand.
ghostwriter 5y ago
> Generally, yes. If you don't work in the field, I doubt you can even read a single paper, let alone identify errors. I doubt you have enough knowledge about sciences and the process of learning in general to discuss this matter, let alone to make bold claims on other people's ability to reason about findings of various papers. > That's always been the case. But yes, if you are not an expert or knowledgable about a topic, your opinion generally does not mean anything. I know this is hard for people to hear. It's fun to watch how quickly you switched from the original "unless you're an expert in a field" to "if you are not an expert or knowledgable about a topic", and yet you are stil unable to admit that you said a silly thing in the first place. Also, what you are saying has never been the case in scientific circles. It's been the case in the circles around them, among the people with less intelligence yet unjustified ambition: "expert" is the same phony concept as "prestige" - a token of a social climber who is seeking a stamp of committee approval, and who couldn't care less about the actual knowledge in the field and the pursuit of truth.
- midev 5y ago
  > I doubt you have enough knowledge about sciences and the process of learning in general to discuss this matter, let alone to make bold claims on other people's ability to reason about findings of various papers. That's fine. You can have your opinions on whatever you want. I still don't think you can read papers from most fields :shrug:. > It's fun to watch how quickly you switched from the original "unless you're an expert in a field" to "if you are not an expert or knowledgable about a topic", and yet you are stil unable to admit that you said a silly thing in the first place. I don't choose my words that carefully, so this isn't the point you think it is. I said knowledgable as some wiggle room. Don't read too much into it. > Also, what you are saying has never been the case in scientific circles. It's been the case in the circles around them, among the people with less intelegence yet unjustified ambition: "expert" is the same phony concept as "prestige" - a token of a social climber who is seeking a stamp of committee approval, and who couldn't care less about the actual knowledge in the field and the pursuit of truth. This is an insecurity you have with yourself, creating some weird definition of expert. Like I said, people hate to hear that their opinions don't matter.
  - ghostwriter 5y ago
    > That's fine. You can have your opinions on whatever you want. I still don't think you can read papers from most fields :shrug:. That wasn't an argument in your original comment. You specifically said that people were not scientifically literate unless they were "experts". > I don't choose my words that carefully, so this isn't the point you think it is. One day you will discover that before you are able to make a point you need to learn to choose your words carefully first. Words, like science, have an exact meaning too. > I said knowledgable as some wiggle room. Don't read too much into it. Don't worry, I'm not taking you seriously yet, at least not until you define what precisely does "expert" mean. Nevertheless, it's fun to see how far you are willing to go with your comments without admitting your mistake. > This is an insecurity you have with yourself, creating some weird definition of expert. Like I said, people hate to hear that their opinions don't matter. Which insecurity? Please be specific about your words here too. And let's finally check your premises. What's your definition of an "expert"?

by midev 5y ago

desine 5y ago

I don't think you're an expert of expertise so therefore I reject your analysis of expertism

midev 5y ago
There you go. Now you understand.

ghostwriter 5y ago

> Generally, yes. If you don't work in the field, I doubt you can even read a single paper, let alone identify errors. I doubt you have enough knowledge about sciences and the process of learning in general to discuss this matter, let alone to make bold claims on other people's ability to reason about findings of various papers. > That's always been the case. But yes, if you are not an expert or knowledgable about a topic, your opinion generally does not mean anything. I know this is hard for people to hear. It's fun to watch how quickly you switched from the original "unless you're an expert in a field" to "if you are not an expert or knowledgable about a topic", and yet you are stil unable to admit that you said a silly thing in the first place. Also, what you are saying has never been the case in scientific circles. It's been the case in the circles around them, among the people with less intelligence yet unjustified ambition: "expert" is the same phony concept as "prestige" - a token of a social climber who is seeking a stamp of committee approval, and who couldn't care less about the actual knowledge in the field and the pursuit of truth.

midev 5y ago
> I doubt you have enough knowledge about sciences and the process of learning in general to discuss this matter, let alone to make bold claims on other people's ability to reason about findings of various papers. That's fine. You can have your opinions on whatever you want. I still don't think you can read papers from most fields :shrug:. > It's fun to watch how quickly you switched from the original "unless you're an expert in a field" to "if you are not an expert or knowledgable about a topic", and yet you are stil unable to admit that you said a silly thing in the first place. I don't choose my words that carefully, so this isn't the point you think it is. I said knowledgable as some wiggle room. Don't read too much into it. > Also, what you are saying has never been the case in scientific circles. It's been the case in the circles around them, among the people with less intelegence yet unjustified ambition: "expert" is the same phony concept as "prestige" - a token of a social climber who is seeking a stamp of committee approval, and who couldn't care less about the actual knowledge in the field and the pursuit of truth. This is an insecurity you have with yourself, creating some weird definition of expert. Like I said, people hate to hear that their opinions don't matter.
- ghostwriter 5y ago
  > That's fine. You can have your opinions on whatever you want. I still don't think you can read papers from most fields :shrug:. That wasn't an argument in your original comment. You specifically said that people were not scientifically literate unless they were "experts". > I don't choose my words that carefully, so this isn't the point you think it is. One day you will discover that before you are able to make a point you need to learn to choose your words carefully first. Words, like science, have an exact meaning too. > I said knowledgable as some wiggle room. Don't read too much into it. Don't worry, I'm not taking you seriously yet, at least not until you define what precisely does "expert" mean. Nevertheless, it's fun to see how far you are willing to go with your comments without admitting your mistake. > This is an insecurity you have with yourself, creating some weird definition of expert. Like I said, people hate to hear that their opinions don't matter. Which insecurity? Please be specific about your words here too. And let's finally check your premises. What's your definition of an "expert"?