Food for thought

[Father Bill]

Tundra, you may not feel hatred for experts and expertise, for which I am grateful, but I encounter it pretty well daily. I hope that your unfortunate surgical experience improves somehow with time (and prayer?) and that you are able to maintain your outlook which seems so positive.

[ForresterModern]

I think one part of demonstrating expertise in an area is the ability to easily and simply educate others ignorant of that area in its basic and sometimes more advanced facets. There are some extremely intelligent people out there doing good work themselves, but who have terrible "bedside" manner, i.e., the ability to explain their topic and demonstrate their expertise to those upon whom they intend to "inflict" it. That communication is where the trust forms and where the "ignorant" become more educated and thus more trusting of the "expert".

But beware the phenomenon of "Those who can't do, teach" and its corrolary "Those who can't teach, do". There are many instances where the best teachers are not necessarily the best practitioners (I would not let the chief surgeon where I trained operate on my dog let alone myself or my family, but he developed and provided a phenomenal teaching program). And as I stated previously often the best practitioners are out in the real world banging out the cases (to the great benefit of the many patients they see), but when put in a position where they are expected to slow down and explain what they are doing and why they become, well discombobulated------learning from these folks is best done by observation without intrusion, and occasional questioning of purpose of technical aspects of their procedures.

I hold no truck with PhDs (or MDs or other similar educational equivalents), as I owe much of my 14 years of post-high school education to them, although I will say that there were many whose "pearls" were taken with a large grain of salt, especially when they could not communicate with their students, or otherwise demonstrated some connection. And how do you put faith or trust in the teachings of someone who shows up to teach an advanced class everyday in a cardigan sweater (in either maroon or navy blue) which is mis-buttoned by at least one button, and oftentimes by several (one time 6 buttons off on a 7 button sweater). Others who grabbed students' interests and held them and nourished them could be equally eccentric but at least make the connections and trust necessary to make what they taught have more real meaning and value (a color blind genetics professor who was also an amateur painter--yes I said color blind---showing up in the dead of winter in paint stained shorts and shortsleeved shirt with the neck of a bottle of Gilbey's Gin sticking out of his back pocket-------I chose this guy as my pre-med advisor after dumping the turd I was assigned). Many with dedication even continued to hold classes in their off campus homes during a three week professors' strike in order to honor both their commitment to the strike as well as their commitment to the education of the students in whose hands they were entrusted.

Credentials are fine but they only take you so far, with the demonstration of the makeup of those credentials, and personal interaction and interpersonal development of a relationship needed to develop the true trust needed in an expert IMHO. Sometimes we cannot for whatever reason acquire some or all of those pieces and are left making that decision of "expertise" based on what pieces we can put together, a less than ideal situation IMHO.

[tundramanq]

The internet is a great place to learn - with salt - something about a subject. It's better than going on blind faith in being involved with a decision. It improves communication with the expert and keeps him from having to try to teach most of the basics to you ( see FMs teacher vs doer). I also helps to seperate the experts from the chest pounders who clam up when they realize you may know more on the subject than they do. LOL Four of my short cuts are to good medical sites - guess what is the nearest and dearest subject to my heart - my own skin.

Father - Not to worry, I get mad and then get over myself, it's self distructive and unchristian to carry a grudge. Humans are not perfect, they will make mistakes.

As a perfectionest, I am much harder on myself than others. It was learn to deal with being human long ago or go nuts.
Maybe nuttier.

[Father Bill]

And add to all this... 50% of all people are below average in intelligence.

[David Thorpe]

Great book!

[Mickey]

Quite a bit of wisdom in this thread Tobus hit the nail right on the head with how younger people view education. My son is one of few youngsters I know who not only wants to go to college but also is looking forward to it. Then he thinks he may go for USMC OCS. I'm so very happy and proud that he wants to go to school.

I'm all for education. But the OP here is about who is an expert? When I'm looking for an expert, in any field, I'm not looking for credentials. I'm looking for experience and hopefully, references. If I'm going in for surgery, I want the crusty old guy who's done the procedure a few thousand times, not the intern who I know was taught correctly, and maybe did one or two.

I've done drywall one time. And it came out flawlessly because I studied everything I could find on the subject, and I'm a bit of a perfectionist. I am NOT an expert at drywall. I've watched experts. They KNOW what they are doing. I just went through the motions.

Something I learned many years ago after being across several message boards is that everybody is a genius and an expert when they have access to google. In all message boards, it doesn't take long to figure out who really knows what they are talking about, who regurgitates what they've read or heard, and those that enjoy making others feel stupid.

This is one of the few message boards that I've ever found where nearly everyone actually admits their level of knowledge on the subject, even if asked directly, and generally do not BS folks when asked an honest question. That's why I stick around. This a darn great bunch of people with very little pretense. Not easy to find these days.

[CDNSushi]

Something I learned many years ago after being across several message boards is that everybody is a genius and an expert when they have access to google.

This is precisely why, as an instructor I use the principles of (Bloom's) taxonomy of knowledge when I teach my students. Not all knowledge is created equal, and there is a distinction between "lower levels" of knowledge and "higher levels." Simple repetition and recall of facts and figures is a basic form of knowledge, whereas the ability to take those facts and figures and not only USE them, but reformulate them in order to produce and create a NEW result is a superior form of knowledge.

Case in point. Last week I taught my (very low-level) ESL students a formula for making a "CLOSED" (yes/no) question in English. I taught them that we can use the form "To do" with a subject and another verb to make the sentence grammatically correct, and we can use "To be" with either a noun or adjective.

I.e. DO + YOU + <verb> ? ARE + YOU + <noun>; ARE + YOU + <adjective>?

E.g. Do you swim? = correct.
Are you swim? = incorrrect.

Do you happy? = incorrect.
Do you a student? = incorrect.
Are you happy? = correct.
Are you a student? = correct.

Then, I asked them comprehension questions. I wrote this on the board:

Fill in the blanks with the correct type of word you need to form the question:

Do + you + _____________ ?
Are + you + i) ___________ ?
Are + you + ii) ___________?

MOST students were able to fill in the blanks appropriately.

Do + you + <verb> ?
Are + you + i) <noun> ?
Are + you + ii) <adjective>?

No problems there, right? But does that mean the students KNOW and UNDERSTAND the material? Well, yes and no. The above question tested their lower level knowledge. But let's see if they possess a higher level of knowledge. I wrote this on the board:

Find and correct the mistake(s) (if any):

a) Is she play baseball?
b) Does Ventforet Kofu have a good team this year?

Result: Very few students were able to answer this because they only knew how to recall and regurgitate the rule -- they did NOT yet know how to USE the rule to apply it in a real-world sense.

Anyway, I digress. An "EXPERT" is somebody who has more than simple, lower-level understanding of a topic. It is someone who can apply ALL the taxonomical levels of knowledge to a topic. Specifically, it is someone who can:

RECALL: define, describe, identify, know, label, list, match, name, outline, recall, recognize, reproduce, select, state.
COMPREHEND: understand, convert, defend, distinguish, estimate, explain, extend, generalize, give an example, infer, interpret, paraphrase, predict, rewrite, summarize, translate.
APPLY: change, compute, construct, demonstrate, discover, manipulate, modify, operate, predict, prepare, produce, relate, show, solve, use.
ANALYZE: break down, compare, contrast, diagram, deconstruct, differentiate, discriminate, distinguish, identify, illustrate, infer, outline, relate, select, separate.
SYNTHESIZE: categorize, combine, compile, compose, create, devise, design, explain, generate, modify, organize, plan, rearrange, reconstruct, relate, reorganize, revise, rewrite, summarize, tell, write.
EVALUATE: appraise, compare, conclude, contrast, criticize, critique, defend, describe, discriminate, evaluate, explain, interpret, justify, relate, summarize, support.

That is an expert. Whether or not they have the credentials on paper or by life experience, someone who can do all these things does truly know what they are talking about. Now how we recognize an expert and separate the wheat from the chaff as it were, is a whole other matter!

[Bugbear]

I've heard this in many different contexts, but it just happened to be pointed out in an introductory social semiotics text book I've been reading; we do not know when something being studied for the sake of learning or knowledge will turn out to be very useful in the future to some other field. I would point out that extends to learning and experiences beyond and outside of the academic setting; I don't understand the need for dismissive attitudes or smugness from either side.

I would want to see the Isaac Asimov quote in it's full context before I throw it in someone's face, by the way: I don't have the 1980, News Week article from which it was taken.

[opositive]

i deal with a lot of experts, and i always want my experts to explain to me what are the limits-- it is just as important to know what they do not know as it is what they do know. think of the differences between astronomy and astrology--on the surface they look alike--both require a precise knowledge of celestial bodies, movements, subtle influences--but one is science and the other amusing conversation.

[Mickey]

Very well said, Sushi, and I think that sums it up nicely. Knowledge is good. Being able to practically apply that knowledge, and truly understand that knowledge, is something else entirely. That is the beginning of an expert.