Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 81 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-19-2019 6:35 PM
24 online now:
Coragyps, Diomedes, JonF, marc9000, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Tanypteryx (7 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 849,846 Year: 4,883/19,786 Month: 1,005/873 Week: 361/376 Day: 38/116 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What qualifications make up an Expert?
Phat
Member
Posts: 12241
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 1 of 12 (164266)
12-01-2004 3:29 AM


While I consider myself to be far from qualifying as an "expert" in any topic field that we at EvC discuss, I feel that I can judge and compare different scholars and determine which ones are most trustworthy.
There is always bias to be sure, but I want to throw this question out to the forum:
What criteria make an expert?
As an example, many Bible scholars that I have read agree that Moses is the author of both Genesis and Deuteronomy. Our own resident Bible answerman, Arachnophilia, disagrees. Who is the expert? What criteria are used?
Is there two sides to this? Is no agreeable conclusion possible?

This message has been edited by Phatboy, 12-03-2004 02:59 AM


Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by PaulK, posted 12-01-2004 11:34 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 12-01-2004 3:15 PM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 8 by Dr Jack, posted 12-02-2004 6:15 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 10 by Coragyps, posted 12-02-2004 11:18 AM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 11 by jar, posted 12-02-2004 12:35 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 12 (164317)
12-01-2004 10:32 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 14801
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 3 of 12 (164342)
12-01-2004 11:34 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
12-01-2004 3:29 AM


If you are simply interested in expert testimony then the most importnt criterion is their standing with their peers. But we also have to knwo when the expert is talking as an expert or when he is simply expressing his own opinions.

There is a problem with Bible Scholars, though, in that religious orthodoxy can take priority over good scholarship. To the best of my knowledge the atribution of Genesis and Deuteronomy to Moses rests solely on a tradition of unknown provenance. There is no signfiicant evidence that Moses wrote either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 12-01-2004 3:29 AM Phat has not yet responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 18368
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 4 of 12 (164404)
12-01-2004 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
12-01-2004 3:29 AM


I concur with PaulK, and would add that the desire to put one's trust in experts seems similar to wanting to put one's trust in leaders or ministers. Science or any field of intellectual endeavor doesn't work by asking, "Which expert should I trust?" It works by assessing the evidence.

Regarding Moses as the author of the Penteteuch, it wouldn't matter if there were a million experts expressing this belief. None of them can offer any relevant evidence, and a stylistic analysis indicates at least 4 authors and two primary tradition sources.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 12-01-2004 3:29 AM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Mammuthus, posted 12-02-2004 6:11 AM Percy has not yet responded

    
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2098 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 5 of 12 (164598)
12-02-2004 5:32 AM


Well, while I can`t define an 'expert' to the satisfaction of all, I would like to point out that in many lawsuits, the defence can usually find an 'expert' to refute the plaintiff`s 'expert.'
Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by CK, posted 12-02-2004 6:04 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

    
CK
Member (Idle past 2232 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 6 of 12 (164602)
12-02-2004 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Nighttrain
12-02-2004 5:32 AM


The law doesn't confirm to logic or reason - so I wouldn't use that as an example :-)

I would echo what others are saying - what is the standing of the person with their peers? How do we judge this ?

How often their peer-reviewed work is cited in other peer-reviewed work seem to work quite well for me as a measure.

Be very wary of people who provide "evidence" via websites or Verbal means.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Nighttrain, posted 12-02-2004 5:32 AM Nighttrain has not yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 4580 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 7 of 12 (164604)
12-02-2004 6:11 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by Percy
12-01-2004 3:15 PM


quote:
Science or any field of intellectual endeavor doesn't work by asking, "Which expert should I trust?" It works by assessing the evidence.

Ideally this is true. However, the unfortunate truth is that there is some "star worshipping" even among scientists. Given the collaborative nature of science, the first or last author on a paper may not have been the originator of the underlying idea being tested. However, they will tend to be treated as "experts" upon publication..especially in a high impact journal. The entire impact factor measure is also reflective of the disease of promoting people over science. Thus, really creative and good scientists are sometimes run out of science (not enough publications etc.) and complete morons can become professors (a particularly acute problem in Germany where an intricate system of nepotism compounds the problem).

But overall, science and scientists even under current conditions emphasize the evidence regardless of the personalities involved. Thus, frauds like the recent case of Hendrik Schoen, go from being regarded as experts to being stripped of their Ph.D. On the flip side, a complete unknown student may make a major discovery and leave their mark on science if they have solid evidence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Percy, posted 12-01-2004 3:15 PM Percy has not yet responded

  
Dr Jack
Member (Idle past 210 days)
Posts: 3507
From: Leicester, England
Joined: 07-14-2003


Message 8 of 12 (164605)
12-02-2004 6:15 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
12-01-2004 3:29 AM


Is term expert either meaningful or useful?
I'm not convinced that the term 'expert' is either meaningful or useful in science and other investigatives fields (history, etc.) - it strikes me that there is no clear way to define an expert, and no reason to suppose that even if a person is an expert that there opinion or testimony is correct. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the term expert is an entirely social label.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 12-01-2004 3:29 AM Phat has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 12-02-2004 10:57 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8842
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003
Member Rating: 7.5


Message 9 of 12 (164642)
12-02-2004 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by Dr Jack
12-02-2004 6:15 AM


Personal
Picking an expert, to me, is a short cut.

When an individual has demonstrated a good track record it might save time and effort in less crucial cases to trust them on other issues. When you pick someone, what you pick on and who you pick is a personal matter and will vary with the area of study.

In any case, if it is important or controversial, the evidence trumps the expert and you would make the effort to dig deeper in cases of consequence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Dr Jack, posted 12-02-2004 6:15 AM Dr Jack has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Nighttrain, posted 12-03-2004 12:18 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5380
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 7.1


Message 10 of 12 (164648)
12-02-2004 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
12-01-2004 3:29 AM


What criteria make an expert?

In earlier days, there were two and only two criteria: 1) having a tray of 35-millimeter slides and 2) being more than 100 miles from home. I presume that now one must have a PowerPoint presentation instead of the slides.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 12-01-2004 3:29 AM Phat has not yet responded

    
jar
Member
Posts: 30935
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 11 of 12 (164655)
12-02-2004 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Phat
12-01-2004 3:29 AM


I would say that Expert is simply a label and not a position, and that it is always realtive. It also may or may not correlate to correctness. One important point is that almost every expert gets left behind, often within his or her own life span.

But experts can be wrong as well as right. The weight of evidence always trumps the Expert.

On the Biblical/Moses issue, there are several major schools of thought. I would imagine there are as many or more experts that agree there were mutiple authors as those that think Moses wrote it. But again, the weight of the evidence seems to favor those who support the multi-authorship. The sole-authorship crowd seem to have nothing but tradition supporting their position.


Aslan is not a Tame Lion
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Phat, posted 12-01-2004 3:29 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Nighttrain
Member (Idle past 2098 days)
Posts: 1512
From: brisbane,australia
Joined: 06-08-2004


Message 12 of 12 (164802)
12-03-2004 12:18 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by NosyNed
12-02-2004 10:57 AM


Re: Personal
Hi, Ned, it`s interesting how the fame of forensic experts goes before them, so that now the 'expert' IS the evidence. We had a notorious case overturned in Australia after the famous expert from England had his evidence refuted after the case was over.Likewise the link talks of two famous FBI scientists who cribbed the evidence to sustain their record.
http://www.law-forensic.com/cfr_gen_art_17.htm
In view of the widespread use of DNA as identification, it seems the legal profession has already found a possible weakness with their approach to the prosecutor`s fallacy and the defence attorney`s fallacy.
http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/sc/sc.nsf/pages/Wood_May2002
This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by NosyNed, posted 12-02-2004 10:57 AM NosyNed has not yet responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019