On 1/19/07, Steve Block <steve.block(a)myrealbox.com> wrote:
Marc Riddell wrote:
Hello all,
I believe there is something we should ask at this point. This question is
for everyone participating in this Mailing List:
What is your definition of an "expert"?
Tough one. You have people who know a lot about a subject, and then you
have people who have certificates which say they know a lot about a
subject. Sometimes the two sets intersect. Especially with the set
"people who like to talk hold forth on their areas of perceived
expertise". :)
Seriously, this is what people are still quibbling over at
Wikipedia:Attribution and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. No-one can agree
a formula whereby people which would allow people whom we would consider
experts in the field of the arts but disbar people we wouldn't consider
experts in the sciences. The problem is that opinion is fair game in
the arts but not in the sciences.
Steve block
Opinion is important in the sciences, but there are testable
hypothesies and theories, and working standard models for engineering
and the like.
Lack of competency in the standard models would be a disqualifier as
an expert in sciences or engineering. Some experts in the research
community would also be pushing the envelope (professionally doing
original research) but would still be expected to be fluent in the
common standard models for the field.
--
-george william herbert
george.herbert(a)gmail.com