3 ms·

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

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.

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.