Expertise
> Our information usually comes from people about whom we have no reason to suspect prejudiced bias, or any of the other features that makes interested parties such bad sources.
- We might still doubt a source's actual knowledge of an issue in question; the state of a person's knowledge depends on a number of factors, especially that person's level of expertise and experience, either direct (personal observation) or indirect (study) with the subject at hand.
> You can't tell by looking at someone whether he or she is speaking truthfully, objectively and accurately, you can't judge his or her knowledge or expertise by looking at surface features.
How do you judge a person's expertise?
> By education and experience are often the most important factors, followed by accomplishments, reputation, and position, in no particular order.
- Education: is not strictly limited to formal education- the possession of degrees from established institutions of learning. (Ex. the title "doctor" is not automatically a qualification.)
- Experience: both the kind and the amount. It's important if it's relevant to the issue at hand but the fact that someone has been on the job for a long time does not automatically make him or her good at it.
- Accomplishments: an important indicator of someone's expertise but only when those accomplishments are directly related to the question at hand. (Ex. A Nobel Prize winner in physics is not necessarily qualified to speak publicly about toy safety, public school education or nuclear proliferation; last issue may involve physics, is true but political issues are the crucial ones are not taught in physics labs.
- Reputation: important as a criterion of his or her expertise. Must be seen in a context; how much importance we should attach to somebody's reputation depends on the people among whom the person has that reputation. ( Ex. May have a strong reputation as a pool player among the denizens of you local pool hall but that doesn't put you in the same league with Allison Fisher.)
- Position: it provides an indication of how well somebody thinks of them. ( Ex. A director of an important scientific laboratory, the head of an academic department at Harvard, the author of a work consulted by other experts; in each case the position itself is substantial evidence that the individual's opinion on a relevant subject warrants serious attention.)
> Can be disagreeable, especially when the issue is complicated and many different interests are at stake.
- In these cases, critical thinkers are obliged to suspend judgment about which expert to endorse, unless one expert clearly represents a majority viewpoint among experts in the field or unless one expert can be established as more authoritative or less biased than the others.
- We might still doubt a source's actual knowledge of an issue in question; the state of a person's knowledge depends on a number of factors, especially that person's level of expertise and experience, either direct (personal observation) or indirect (study) with the subject at hand.
> You can't tell by looking at someone whether he or she is speaking truthfully, objectively and accurately, you can't judge his or her knowledge or expertise by looking at surface features.
How do you judge a person's expertise?
> By education and experience are often the most important factors, followed by accomplishments, reputation, and position, in no particular order.
- Education: is not strictly limited to formal education- the possession of degrees from established institutions of learning. (Ex. the title "doctor" is not automatically a qualification.)
- Experience: both the kind and the amount. It's important if it's relevant to the issue at hand but the fact that someone has been on the job for a long time does not automatically make him or her good at it.
- Accomplishments: an important indicator of someone's expertise but only when those accomplishments are directly related to the question at hand. (Ex. A Nobel Prize winner in physics is not necessarily qualified to speak publicly about toy safety, public school education or nuclear proliferation; last issue may involve physics, is true but political issues are the crucial ones are not taught in physics labs.
- Reputation: important as a criterion of his or her expertise. Must be seen in a context; how much importance we should attach to somebody's reputation depends on the people among whom the person has that reputation. ( Ex. May have a strong reputation as a pool player among the denizens of you local pool hall but that doesn't put you in the same league with Allison Fisher.)
- Position: it provides an indication of how well somebody thinks of them. ( Ex. A director of an important scientific laboratory, the head of an academic department at Harvard, the author of a work consulted by other experts; in each case the position itself is substantial evidence that the individual's opinion on a relevant subject warrants serious attention.)
> Can be disagreeable, especially when the issue is complicated and many different interests are at stake.
- In these cases, critical thinkers are obliged to suspend judgment about which expert to endorse, unless one expert clearly represents a majority viewpoint among experts in the field or unless one expert can be established as more authoritative or less biased than the others.