4 ms·
That seems a bit harsh. People can independently become experts without being familiar with the terminology used by existing experts. Further, if intended for a
by rlpb 2y ago
That seems a bit harsh. People can independently become experts without being familiar with the terminology used by existing experts. Further, if intended for a non-expert audience, it may even be deliberate to loosen definitions of terms used by experts, and being precise by leaving a note about that instead, which apparently is exactly what this author did.
- dash2 2y agoIt's much better to use vocabulary consistently with what everyone else does in the field. Then you don't need to add footnotes correcting yourself. And if you are not familiar with what everyone else means by correlation, you're very unlikely to be an expert. This is not like that Indian mathematician who reinvented huge chunks of mathematics.
- rlpb 2y ago> It's much better to use vocabulary consistently with what everyone else does in the field. Fine, but... > And if you are not familiar with what everyone else means by correlation, you're very unlikely to be an expert. Perhaps, but this is not relevant. If there's a problem with this work, then that problem can be criticized directly. There is no need, and it is not useful, to infer "expertise" by indirect means.