Laypeople trump experts

Interesting article. I’m not sure Pellegrini isn’t an expert even though he isn’t a professional physicist. If I read the article correctly it looks like he has spent many years thinking about the subject. A person can be an expert in some subjects without formal qualifications don’t you think? Did I miss something? 

He certainly not a professional physicist as I read it but I am not sure that makes him a lay person either in practical terms (although I guess technically it does).

That's a good point. My rather old dictionary gives "non-professional" as the meaning of lay relevant to this discussion. But amateurs can certainly acquire expertise (and professionals don't always possess it). So probably one can be both an "expert" and a "layperson".

Seems nonsensical to posit a binary relationship between layperson and expert.  A continuum that would appear quite blurry in the middle seems more appropriate.  Another interesting aspect of Linda's OP.

Seems nonsensical to posit a binary relationship between layperson and expert.  A continuum that would appear quite blurry in the middle seems more appropriate.  Another interesting aspect of Linda's OP.

I agree. My title used "laypeople" and "experts", but my OP referred to more of a continuum. Instead of long and potentially confusing titles, I tend to pick short, catchy titles and use the OP to explain the situation in more detail.

Linda

Interesting article. I’m not sure Pellegrini isn’t an expert even though he isn’t a professional physicist. If I read the article correctly it looks like he has spent many years thinking about the subject. A person can be an expert in some subjects without formal qualifications don’t you think? Did I miss something? 

He certainly not a professional physicist as I read it but I am not sure that makes him a lay person either in practical terms (although I guess technically it does).

That's an interesting example. What do you make of his reception by experts, which seems to be a thoughtful consideration of his idea? And what do you think it would mean if in the end, consensus ends up finding against his point?

Linda

That's an interesting example. What do you make of his reception by experts, which seems to be a thoughtful consideration of his idea? And what do you think it would mean if in the end, consensus ends up finding against his point?

Linda

I guess experts (paid and unpaid) are a cross-section of society. Some will be open-minded truth seeking folk, some will be convinced they know the answer already and therefore he is wrong. The best response in opposition is perhaps to show how the assertion is wrong, if that’s possible. I think his reception is what I would expect from honest open-minded people who are willing to learn or who are aware of the limitations of their own knowledge (interestingly perhaps, it seems to me that those who are real experts are often very aware of the limitations of their knowledge, happy to teach and learn, and don’t hide behind bluster).

If in the end the consensus is against him, then provided his ideas have been properly considered and there is a reasoned rebuttal of them produced, it probably indicates that he’s wrong. Probably .

I guess experts (paid and unpaid) are a cross-section of society. Some will be open-minded truth seeking folk, some will be convinced they know the answer already and therefore he is wrong. The best response in opposition is perhaps to show how the assertion is wrong, if that’s possible. I think his reception is what I would expect from honest open-minded people who are willing to learn or who are aware of the limitations of their own knowledge (interestingly perhaps, it seems to me that those who are real experts are often very aware of the limitations of their knowledge, happy to teach and learn, and don’t hide behind bluster).

If in the end the consensus is against him, then provided his ideas have been properly considered and there is a reasoned rebuttal of them produced, it probably indicates that he’s wrong. Probably .

I'm not sure how that helps, given that we don't really have a way to determine any of those things you mention. For example - who is "open-minded"? Swift says that physicists are often pestered by people claiming to have found flaws in our understanding and he talked about ignoring them (including ignoring Pellegrini initially). Wouldn't that make Swift one of the close-minded type? Even though he eventually gave Pellegrini's work a look, what about all the other ideas which weren't?

And how does one know whether it has been shown how the assertion is wrong, given that it takes expertise to distinguish between criticisms which are valid and those which aren't? Aren't we still going to see this question divided along the line of "experts" and "relative inexperts"?

I agree with you that real experts are more likely to be aware of the limitations of their knowledge. That doesn't seem to be a feature of people who want to claim expertise outside of their area of knowledge and experience, though.

This is the situation as it now stands - people seemingly working outside of their area of expertise present ideas which are judged by people with and without expertise as valid or not valid. What allows an individual to feel confident making the call, in contradistinction to those with considerable knowledge and experience?

Linda

Well you asked me what I made of it so that's what I wrote. How it helps? Dunno.  

I was more commenting on the definition of an expert rather than debate about lay people proving experts wrong. That it can be difficult to distinguish between the two.

Obiwan
I was more commenting on the definition of an expert rather than debate about lay people proving experts wrong. That it can be difficult to distinguish between the two.

In what way is it difficult to distinguish between the two? I understand that people can have varying degrees of knowledge and experience, or varying levels of engagement in a field. But usually you can find some indication of the minimum requirements needed to make someone competent - for example, the GCW description of the requirements to be regarded as a master weaver (http://www.thegcw.org/mrws/filedriver/Gu...eb2016.pdf) or the board exams for medical specialties. 

And it's not like we are usually looking at people who are close, in terms of knowledge and experience, but rather who are far apart.

Would you expect, that if you present a research study to two people with equivalent expertise, that they would generally agree on what valid conclusions could be drawn from that study?

Linda

In what way is it difficult to distinguish between the two? I understand that people can have varying degrees of knowledge and experience, or varying levels of engagement in a field. But usually you can find some indication of the minimum requirements needed to make someone competent - for example, the GCW description of the requirements to be regarded as a master weaver (http://www.thegcw.org/mrws/filedriver/Gu...eb2016.pdf) or the board exams for medical specialties. 

And it's not like we are usually looking at people who are close, in terms of knowledge and experience, but rather who are far apart.

Would you expect, that if you present a research study to two people with equivalent expertise, that they would generally agree on what valid conclusions could be drawn from that study?

Linda

As an example, an amateur astronomer might know as much as someone with a PhD in the subject but have no formal qualifications. They might both be experts. Absence of formal certification of competence doesn't imply a lack of it does it?

If you mean the difference between someone who is a professional/amateur expert in the subject and someone who is  not, that's probably easier to identify - if you know the subject area. 

I don't mean to be rude but I did say I was merely commenting on Chris's remark originally so don't take offence if I don't continue in this discussion - I am not really interested.

As an example, an amateur astronomer might know as much as someone with a PhD in the subject but have no formal qualifications. They might both be experts. Absence of formal certification of competence doesn't imply a lack of it does it?

If you mean the difference between someone who is a professional/amateur expert in the subject and someone who is  not, that's probably easier to identify - if you know the subject area. 

I don't mean to be rude but I did say I was merely commenting on Chris's remark originally so don't take offence if I don't continue in this discussion - I am not really interested.

Sorry. No problem

Linda