5 ms·

> The author says they studied nuclear in grad school, and are probably therefore an expert. That's not how it works. Just going to grad school (and it appears

> The author says they studied nuclear in grad school, and are probably therefore an expert. That's not how it works. Just going to grad school (and it appears this is just for a Master's) doesn't imply you're suddenly an expert on an entire discipline. Even full professors don't generally claim to be experts in their entire fields; they become experts in their niches sub-fields/areas of research. You'd need to know what topics someone has actually studied, what their work/research was like, etc. before you can assume they're an expert in the areas you care about, and that information isn't given here.

lordnacho 5y ago
I think this is moving the goalposts. According to you it's not enough to have the qualifications, you need specific ones in specific sub areas. What's to stop you dismissing him by dividing it up even more if it turns out he's actually studied the right area? To me it sounds a bit like when anti vaxxers dismiss doctors who aren't epidemiologists, or when people dismiss Krugman because he's a trade economist and not some other subspecialty. Just give the guy credit for his claim that he's studied this, chances are he's closer to the area than people who don't claim expertise and otherwise let him present his case, which is what really matters anyway.
- dataflow 5y ago
  > What's to stop you dismissing him by dividing it up even more if it turns out he's actually studied the right area? I would think my reasonableness would stop me in that case, but there's not much I can offer you when you've already assumed otherwise. And to be extremely clear: I was merely responding to the metric/reasoning used in the parent comment, not making any claims about the author's qualifications in particular. It would've applied to anybody, whether Einstein or just a random dude. Even for Einstein, you don't say "I know Einstein was an expert because he went to grad school", you say (for example) "I know Einstein was an expert in mechanics because he came up with relativity, an expert in electromagnetism because he explained the photoelectric effect, etc." That was my point, is all.
- ivan_gammel 5y ago
  Being expert in this case means being familiar with the current situation in German nuclear industry and knowing it from the inside. Just knowing how nuclear plant works in theory is not enough.
  - hedora 5y ago
    He read the primary sources, including the German government's risk assessments for these plants.
    - ivan_gammel 5y ago
      In order to challenge these risk assessments he must know the specifics in detail. Just reading some public documents does not make him an expert.
- cycomanic 5y ago
  So the actual quote is: > I studied nuclear energy generation in my two MSc in Industrial Engineering. which to me sounds not like he actually did a masters in nuclear power generation, but took some courses during his masters. But even if he did, that doesn't make him an expert, whom of the software developers here would let a grad student come to their company and say "I did a masters in CS I will tell all of you how to do your dev work"? So yes this sounds exactly like the anti vaxxers, who say they studied some bioscience (or are even some doctors) and can somehow dismiss World renowned experts.
  - godelski 5y ago
    > whom of the software developers here would let a grad student come to their company and say "I did a masters in CS I will tell all of you how to do your dev work"? Isn't this... how you hire people?
    - formerkrogemp 5y ago
      That's a fair point, but does a few courses make someone a subject matter expert? Probably not. Could they still have something constructive to say? Probably? Should that verified with other sources? Of course.
godelski 5y ago
> That's not how it works. Just going to grad school (and it appears this is just for a Master's) doesn't imply you're suddenly an expert on an entire discipline. I think it makes you pretty knowledgeable. Expert is a bit vague. Many would consider expertise in having extensive knowledge beyond that of the public. If he studied in undergrad he'd have this. He'd get more in grad school. But if we're talking expert as in "leading expert" then no, he clearly isn't that. But by your own definition, it means that the politicians that made these evaluations and decisions themselves were not experts. If a full professor does not qualify then even a PhD in nuclear physics but working in politics certainty does not qualify. So I'm a bit confused by this comment. I appreciate an appeal to experts as opposed to assuming that we here on HN know better, but I feel this comment moved the goal post too far and just shifted the decision to experts in an inconsistent manner.
- dataflow 5y ago
  I don't think the line between "expert" and "knowledgeable" is in any way blurry enough for it to affect this discussion. For something as serious as nuclear power plants and their safety (not to mention political factors), I don't think "let's expect considerably more than a Master's degree in nuclear engineering... we need an expert" is a remotely controversial statement or a movement of any goalpost. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the public sentiment/goalposts have been and will continue to be on this issue.
- 7952 5y ago
  Surely an expert actually does work to come to conclusions. They build a team, write papers, do research etc. Follow an objective process.
  - godelski 5y ago
    My main point here is that the gp said "op isn't an expert because they don't have xyz qualifications so can't criticize these experts (who also don't have xyz qualifications)". It's the inconsistency. Also, the piece is at such a high level that it really doesn't take a lot of expertise to write. The summary of the article is "I'd rather take the risks of nuclear by restarting our existing nuclear infrastructure rather than to continue to fund the Russian war machine." That's really it. He gives more support and tries to sound scientific, but it's just an opinion and the guy is an actual expert in marketing. Seems fair enough.

lordnacho 5y ago

I think this is moving the goalposts. According to you it's not enough to have the qualifications, you need specific ones in specific sub areas. What's to stop you dismissing him by dividing it up even more if it turns out he's actually studied the right area? To me it sounds a bit like when anti vaxxers dismiss doctors who aren't epidemiologists, or when people dismiss Krugman because he's a trade economist and not some other subspecialty. Just give the guy credit for his claim that he's studied this, chances are he's closer to the area than people who don't claim expertise and otherwise let him present his case, which is what really matters anyway.

dataflow 5y ago
> What's to stop you dismissing him by dividing it up even more if it turns out he's actually studied the right area? I would think my reasonableness would stop me in that case, but there's not much I can offer you when you've already assumed otherwise. And to be extremely clear: I was merely responding to the metric/reasoning used in the parent comment, not making any claims about the author's qualifications in particular. It would've applied to anybody, whether Einstein or just a random dude. Even for Einstein, you don't say "I know Einstein was an expert because he went to grad school", you say (for example) "I know Einstein was an expert in mechanics because he came up with relativity, an expert in electromagnetism because he explained the photoelectric effect, etc." That was my point, is all.
ivan_gammel 5y ago
Being expert in this case means being familiar with the current situation in German nuclear industry and knowing it from the inside. Just knowing how nuclear plant works in theory is not enough.
- hedora 5y ago
  He read the primary sources, including the German government's risk assessments for these plants.
  - ivan_gammel 5y ago
    In order to challenge these risk assessments he must know the specifics in detail. Just reading some public documents does not make him an expert.
cycomanic 5y ago
So the actual quote is: > I studied nuclear energy generation in my two MSc in Industrial Engineering. which to me sounds not like he actually did a masters in nuclear power generation, but took some courses during his masters. But even if he did, that doesn't make him an expert, whom of the software developers here would let a grad student come to their company and say "I did a masters in CS I will tell all of you how to do your dev work"? So yes this sounds exactly like the anti vaxxers, who say they studied some bioscience (or are even some doctors) and can somehow dismiss World renowned experts.
- godelski 5y ago
  > whom of the software developers here would let a grad student come to their company and say "I did a masters in CS I will tell all of you how to do your dev work"? Isn't this... how you hire people?
  - formerkrogemp 5y ago
    That's a fair point, but does a few courses make someone a subject matter expert? Probably not. Could they still have something constructive to say? Probably? Should that verified with other sources? Of course.

godelski 5y ago

> That's not how it works. Just going to grad school (and it appears this is just for a Master's) doesn't imply you're suddenly an expert on an entire discipline. I think it makes you pretty knowledgeable. Expert is a bit vague. Many would consider expertise in having extensive knowledge beyond that of the public. If he studied in undergrad he'd have this. He'd get more in grad school. But if we're talking expert as in "leading expert" then no, he clearly isn't that. But by your own definition, it means that the politicians that made these evaluations and decisions themselves were not experts. If a full professor does not qualify then even a PhD in nuclear physics but working in politics certainty does not qualify. So I'm a bit confused by this comment. I appreciate an appeal to experts as opposed to assuming that we here on HN know better, but I feel this comment moved the goal post too far and just shifted the decision to experts in an inconsistent manner.

dataflow 5y ago
I don't think the line between "expert" and "knowledgeable" is in any way blurry enough for it to affect this discussion. For something as serious as nuclear power plants and their safety (not to mention political factors), I don't think "let's expect considerably more than a Master's degree in nuclear engineering... we need an expert" is a remotely controversial statement or a movement of any goalpost. I'm pretty sure that's exactly what the public sentiment/goalposts have been and will continue to be on this issue.
7952 5y ago
Surely an expert actually does work to come to conclusions. They build a team, write papers, do research etc. Follow an objective process.
- godelski 5y ago
  My main point here is that the gp said "op isn't an expert because they don't have xyz qualifications so can't criticize these experts (who also don't have xyz qualifications)". It's the inconsistency. Also, the piece is at such a high level that it really doesn't take a lot of expertise to write. The summary of the article is "I'd rather take the risks of nuclear by restarting our existing nuclear infrastructure rather than to continue to fund the Russian war machine." That's really it. He gives more support and tries to sound scientific, but it's just an opinion and the guy is an actual expert in marketing. Seems fair enough.