Is it experts or "experts"?

Because incompetence is incapable of seeing that it is incompetent?

People who are incapable of discerning the nuances of an expert opinion are likely to think that their uninformed opinion is just as valid.Think of it like this ... "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job"Is the opinion of someone who:(1) knows what a good job is in this particular application
(2) recognizes when a good job has been done in this particular application
(3) has a complete knowledge of all that goes into doing a good job in this particular applicationor (4) none of the above, in spite of having the best reason for having the best expert opinions available and incorporated into the planning for this particular application?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

The most popular use of experts is medical. People go to doctors because they know more about sickness and injury than the common joe\jane.When oil companies want to find oil, they go to experts in the field of geology, and when people are in trouble with the law (or have a dispute with other people) they turn to lawyers.Reasonable people accept that there are experts in these various fields that actually do know more than they do about the specifics in question.Smart people also know that getting a second opinion can be as valuable as getting the first one, and when the first two do not agree go for a third.BUTThis is different from the people that reject the opinions of various fields of experts out of hand as some kind of smoke and mirrors. This kind of wholesale rejection can come from no other source than being totally incompetent to understand the field.Whether it is due to ignorance, stupidity, insanity, maliciousness or delusion, is not that important to the fact that if one doesn't have the tools to evaluate the validity of the experts opinion, know where one's knowledge is incomplete nor able to see that the expert does have the {information\knowledge\education} in the matter, then one just cannot see the validity of the experts opinion.We are not talking about blindly accepting the opinion of the {authority\expert}, but the wholesale rejection of a whole field of {educated\trained\experienced\tested} experts.The {argument from authority} is a logical fallacy because the implication is that the authority must be right, and this is false. What is true is that the authority is likely to be right, but the {afa} has no way to determine if that is true in the specific case where the argument is employed.Enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I have also seen much greater deference given to {experts in specific fields} in europe, though my experience there is limited.Perhaps it is the american ego that is also part of the problem eh?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

welcome back rrhain. Yes, throw in denial too ... And one can feed the other as well: incompetence lets the faulty world view exist, the faulty world view says the fields of incompetence are not worthy of study. It becomes self-reinforcing.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.