Talk:Expert

Expert vs Specialist

This is a discussion..

Text says: An expert differs from the specialist in that a specialist has to be able to solve a problem and an expert has to know its solution.

This separation may not be necessary, or even valid depending on the theoretical framework we use to define expertise. According to Sternberg (1998) expertise is the same as "developing abilities". He notes, "expertise is typically not at an end state but is in a process of continual development" (p. 11). Yes, accuracy is important, but it's not the only factor that leads to high levels of expertise. I don't think we can say that experts have to know the solutions to problems. They may not know the solution, but can use effective strategies to come up with a working solution.

To learn more about how Sternberg defines and conceptualizes expertise see: Stenberg, R. J. (1998). Abilities are forms of developing expertise. Educational Researcher, 27(3), 11-20. http://thorndike.tc.columbia.edu/~david/Cog%20Dev/Required%20Readings/Abilities%20as%20expertise.pdf

Suzankg (talk) 21:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Last paragraph

I removed the last paragraph as it appears the author placed it in the wrong article. Paragraph is as follows:

Their are also hackers that specialize in phones such as cellular, landline and cordless phones, these specialist are very good also in remote tapping by using codes and techniques by putting parts together as well, these people are know as phreaks and phrackers ( ph-phone rackers-crackers. not all hackers and crackers use your standard computers, they do it all using a phone. ( Level-9 )

--Atratus 11:21, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Moved from article

Dear Wikipedia experts, lol

First of all I must deeply apologize for my flaming of yesterday on the subject "Grand Unifying Theory" (GUT) and objections to it's general objective. As I still hope to contribute someday in some way to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, possibly even on this subject soon I have to explain a little bit more; I hope the form of an ill-directed email like this one might even contribute.

First my credentials

Bastiaan Peter Blankert (m) born 4-11-1964.Utrecht NL, Raised in an extremely artistically,scientifically historically medically and politically oriented family in the mid '60's through '80. (alfa interests) 2 1/2 years US 6 months High School in the Community New Haven Ct., including american law, history, literature. 1980 first interest in computers, book of facts, book of records etc. Freethinking Protestant Gymnasium The Hague, major interests science (physics) and history, drawing and screenplay/free expression . Six years of Law at University of Amsterdam, majoring under Joep van der Vliet in Spinoza's philosophy (in a jewish perspective), on the dissolution of the Scholastic concept of God by Spinoza into a single substance comprising the attributes "Thought" and "extension" among infinite other attributes as well as a comparison between western and japanese legal practise and computer science (mrs. muntjewerff), culminating in title of knowledge engineer and master of law. Editor of "magazine for everything" (tijdschrift voor alles) in 1989-1990 (idea realized more perfectly by internet itself; warning for rise of war in middle east after cold war was over and against the stifling influence of burocracy over honest old fashioned natural live, interests include neanderthal, ancient through contemporary art, extreme christianity and many religious sects. Legal practise (assistant to lawyer 4 years), hobby and expertise momentarily especially in 13th century BC development of monotheism under moses and akhnaton, including the question which of the aforementioned came up with the idea first. Three years ago I still tended to Achnaton very clearly, at present I find the idea they were together in a think-tank on religion created by Amenhotep III most pleasant. The general outline of my still unpublished ideas remains monotheism was first brought to prominence in Egypt, then discarded and never has there been any proof monotheism is any way superior to polytheism and hardly any philosophical religious problem wasn't handled expertly by Egyptian priests in huge seminars. Other interests include Unitheism, global currency unit, platinum price and hylic pluralism. A fellow expert (running art gallery and bookstore), by the name of Erdwin suggested a conference in Egypt to solve present day intra-monotheistic conflicts, including other-religious input of course.

Returning to the Grand Unification Theory and my personal opposition to it, first of all the opposition is religious, not scientific, as a full blown worked out proven Grand Unification Theory would somehow suggest monotheists were Right after all it seems a bit, allthough to my personal opinion even definitive proof of GUT would not in any way invalidate any form of polytheism, especially using the attributes of Spinoza . AS OF NOW THE GRAND UNIFICATION THEORY IS NO MORE THAN A RELIGION, in the sense it is something people somehow like to believe, and awaiting real sensible evidence, should not be treated as more than a sectarian idea. Spinoza's Ethics might be viewed as an early attempt at reaching The Grand Unification Theory. (1665)

As for my expertise on physics, I didn't grasp much beyond Einsteins differences of opionion with Bohr on quantum-mechanics, but this is clearly meant as an alfa opposition against a beta-idea, but this is possible, since final proof is still pending... The flipped SU(5) model seems highly promising, but it clearly beats my beta-mind.

yours sincerely,

(intending to distill this material into sensible lemma sap)

bas blankert —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.210.1.7 (talk • contribs) .

I think Orson Welles helped prove in his brilliant film F for Fake, that the idea of experts and expertise is largely nonsense. There are specialists but the idea that someone has grasp of secret knowledge wreaks of something like a priest or divine providence. Any person thoroughly knowledgable on a subject would be hesitant to use such a word to describe themselves or accept the word being applied to them. After all the first lesson in philosophy is always the more you know the more you realize how little you know from Socrates.

Will Rogers definition of "expert"

Will Rogers described an expert as "A man fifty miles from home with a briefcase."

__________

I am new to this, I think the following would be usefull:

Malcolm Gladwell "on experts"

"The gift of their expertise is that it allows them to have a much better understanding of what goes on behind he locked doors of their unconscious...When we become expert in something our tastes grow more esoteric and complex. What I mean is that it is really only experts who are able to reliably account for their reactions."

--from Blink, Chapter 5, Section 5 "The gift of expertise" Krotona 19:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Merge

Dont. The Gomm 02:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite funny

The beginning of this article is worthy of Uncyclopedia. Esn 04:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? J. D. Redding 23:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Looked at http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Expert ... see that you did a typo correcction there ... not really anything but ranting and babbling .... J. D. Redding 01:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Tags

In an attempt to removed the tags, please address the following sections ... if not, the tags should be removed. J. D. Redding 23:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

inaccuracies?

Please list items concerning this. J. D. Redding 23:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Please list items concerning this. J. D. Redding 23:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Expert?

This tag is self-referential: we need an »expert expert« ... what specific items need to have attention? Please list items concerning this. J. D. Redding 23:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

cleanup

Please expand this article with general information about expert testimony. I also see that the article says that it contains copyrighted information: is it fair use? If not, the copyrighted information should be removed. 68.49.208.76 05:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Legality?

What is this?:

"... sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the individual's opinion."

Does this mean that relying or even considering the opinion of someone not considered an "expert", even for a personal belief, is violating the law?! I've never heard of this law before. Is there a source for this? mike4ty4 07:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

IIRC, it means that it can be entered into evidence. The expert's opinion can be a piece of evidence. It has more weight than hearsay. ... be nice to clarify this. BUT, it's not unlawful for non-experts. J. D. Redding 03:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

An example: a contractor gets a expert to state that he was not at fault for a accident. This would be more valid in a court than a layperson's. J. D. Redding 03:23, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Challenge to the Experts

Let me get this right. An expert is reliable, and the way they become reliable is via the process of Reliabilism.

That means that they have to have Justified Belief. And justified belief is any belief that one believes, and which has been reached by a reliable process ?

So what constitutes a reliable process ?

The only definition of a reliable process is a process provided by a reliable person -- an expert. Huh ?

The argument (and not to mention parts of the citation reasoning of Wikipedia) relies on circular reasoning.

Only an expert can offer a reliable process. And being reliable defines one as an expert.

Am I missing something here ?

"One knows that p (p stands for any proposition--e.g., that the sky is blue) if and only if p is true, one believes that p is true, and one has arrived at the belief that p through some reliable process." InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 03:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

See the 'use in literature'. J. D. Redding

By acclamation

I'd like to propose an alteration to the overall definition:

Drop references to experts as sages.

Sages are either philosophers or religious figures.

It is very hard to make the argument that religion has anything to do with being an expert.

The alternate version is simply to state that sages are philosophers, but then who determines who is a philosopher ?

Defining a philosopher might be a more helpful step.

By the way, my previous comments didn't seem to take.

Is anyone interested in this discussion ? If so, please help by maybe taking issue with my suggestions, so I'm not the only one doing the thinking.

Quite frankly, the rest of the definition and article just doesn't hold water.

How does the "widely recognized" criteria work ? By a vote ? Universal acclamation ? Via shout volume in the stadium ?

How do we know someone is "widely recognized"

If Wikipedia is basing its veracity or utility on this article, then does Wikipedia's baseline utility exceed that of the average fanzine (at least where controversy exists) ?

"An expert (en-us-expert.ogg Audio (US) (help·info)) is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by their peers or the public in a specific well distinguished domain.

An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability in a particular area of study.

Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study. An expert can be, by virtue of training, education, profession, publication or experience, believed to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the individual's opinion.

Historically, an expert was referred to as a sage. The individual was usually a profound philosopher distinguished for wisdom and sound judgment." --InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 03:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Think you are missing the link. Wise old man. J. D. Redding 09:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Found the perfect article for you, Sage (Sophos). Added it to the article. J. D. Redding 09:16, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Sages and Prophets

Just would like to return to Wikipedia's difficulty in working with the concept that there are religious figures (such as prophets, mystics, seers, and ascetics), and then there are those who are experts by way of the visibility of their work.

IF Wikipedia is positing that anyone who founds or extends the sway of a religion is a sage and therefore (a) a philosopher and (b) an expert, I think we are confusing the ability to persuade with the ability to determine useful knowledge.

This problem is aggravated when the religious figure is either dead, or more worrisome, legendary, to the extent that opposite or confounding views as to their statements can be simultaneously asserted. --InnocentsAbroad2 (talk) 22:40, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Historically, they were sages, not prophets. J. D. Redding 09:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Germain "Expertise Scale"

Why is the odd Germain business in this overly-long article? It's horribly written and bizarrely redundant. It's also only three years old, meaning it's not something that, though clunky and verbose, has stood the test of time in its field and thus belongs in an encyclopedia. It could be omitted entirely, or replaced by a short, better-written list of qualities common to experts.

Too wide a definition?

Is it really enough to be recognised by the public? The American geologist Steven Dutch has a text on his home page explaining his definition of “expert”. This rather angry text is primary aimed for people which wrongfully think they are experts. (In my opinion he has the right to be angry at people which denies his expertise.) However, his main point is that in order to be an expert you either need to have a formal qualification or be treated as an equal by people with such qualifications. An example of a person who is an expert according to this article's definition but not according to Steven’s is Danah Zohar. She has repeatedly been called a quantum physicist. Yet her ideas are incredibly far from the scientific consensus. I think she has read a lot without ever realizing that the descriptions referred only to physical conditions and processes on the atomic and sub-atomic scale. Consequentially, she has fundamentally misunderstood them in psychological and social terms. In my opinion she is not a quantum physicist but a quantum mystic. I would absolutely not consider her an expert which is why I support Steven’s definition.

2010-08-23 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Merge with Past master

Merriam-Webster defines "past master" as "one who is expert". As these two articles discuss the same subject, Past master should be merged here. Neelix (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)