This made me laugh. Not only applicable to HiFi sadly.

[DonH56]

Those who deny the value of credentials often have none of their own. And some with the credentials feel it is their duty to "out credential" anybody who disagrees.

My grandmother called them "armchair experts". We had one in my family; knew everything about everything and all the experts were wrong. It went from interesting to annoying to pathetic (in the sad sort of way that you knew he was wrong and yet had no hope of changing his mind)... There have always been those sort of folk, but the Internet has given them a larger voice and greater ability to shout down any opposition. Which works against everyone, natch, since a valid but minority viewpoint is too readily suppressed. And the corollary are the ones who have decided the truth or just correctness of something that take more than a few lines in a forum post to counter. I believe that is what the OP's post was meant to convey: the ability of the ignorant to "win" on the 'net because those who know from years of study realize it takes a long time to attain the knowledge base to understand the problem.

Something I have to watch my own self is the problem of an expert in one field assuming it applies to all others.

I made a couple of posts I thought humorously demonstrated the issue, but of course (as I should have known in hindsight), people took them the wrong way, or failed to understand the underlying point, or argued about the details and accuracy of the anecdotes (jokes).

I certainly am not faultless but I do try to back away, win or lose, when there is just no point in continuing. Maybe 50% success rate with that...

 

[ralphf]

Those who deny the value of credentials often have none of their own.

I think all people would agree that credentials have value and that a person with credentials is more likely to be correct than a person without. But some people like to think critically and don't rely on experts. Time and experience has shown them the value of thinking for themselves and not blindly relying on the expertise of others. They feel that some experts are sometimes corrupt, biased, lazy, busy and distracted, political, etc. (no different than any group of people), and that the smartest thing to do is to think critically. But either way, let people speak. Deal with their arguments and avoid the ad hominem attacks. Can't go wrong with that, unless you are after something other than the truth.

 

[Frank Dernie]

those who believe that multi-dose vaccines are behind high rates of autism, yet there are many well informed and smart people who do not agree, including those with PhDs

Not many actually, a microscopically small minority and they are neither well informed nor smart. The whole thing was debunked years ago and the bloke making a fortune selling it to the gullible was disbarred and then fled to the USA.

The Guardian link is a salutary reminder for journals to stick to the proper peer review process and not bow to rush into print prematurely because of time and political pressure.

 

[Jim Matthews]

The thing these days is to name call and marginalize people. THAT is how issues are resolved today. Don't like someone's opinions, call them "ignorant twats".

Thank you for openly identifying a poster whom I might safely ignore.

 

[DonH56]

I think all people would agree that credentials have value and that a person with credentials is more likely to be correct than a person without. But some people like to think critically and don't rely on experts. Time and experience has shown them the value of thinking for themselves and not blindly relying on the expertise of others. They feel that some experts are sometimes corrupt, biased, lazy, busy and distracted, political, etc. (no different than any group of people), and that the smartest thing to do is to think critically. But either way, let people speak. Deal with their arguments and avoid the ad hominem attacks. Can't go wrong with that, unless you are after something other than the truth.

That approach (in bold) has also led many people astray by overestimating their own knowledge and sources. I disagree with the premise that critical thought and relying on experts (and proven science) are opposites. Reading an article or watching a video or two does not provide enough information to accurately evaluate the information. In audio, and of course numerous other areas, there is the additional issue of perception bias and our own ability to read into the information (raw data) what we want to see.

I was going to provide examples and such but this is one of the debates that just does not seem worth the effort. Plenty of experts make mistakes, that is how science (and life) works, but starting from the assumption that they are all wrong and you (a generic "you) are right is too common these days IME/IMO. To go back to the OP, when somebody spends years learning the basics, years more developing their practical skills, and derives conclusions based on those skills and research only to be told "I don't believe you, you are wrong based on xyz" how did they determine "xyz" and not the expert are correct? Based on what knowledge, what research, what experiments?

Some years ago I decided I could not learn everything, much as I desired, and had to decide upon whom I could trust. I would contend it took critical thought to get to that point, but everyone has their own opinion.

 

[ralphf]

Some years ago I decided I could not learn everything, much as I desired, and had to decide upon whom I could trust. I would contend it took critical thought to get to that point, but everyone has their own opinion.

I agree with you, and I certainly rely on experts; but I never give total uncritical, blind reliance. The issue is whether or not credentials end arguments and allow people to dismiss the opinions of others. It was that, I believe, to which the respondent replied "bullshit".

 

[DonH56]

I agree with you, and I certainly rely on experts; but I never give total uncritical, blind reliance. The issue is whether or not credentials end arguments and allow people to dismiss the opinions of others. It was that, I believe, to which the respondent replied "bullshit".

I guess it depends upon how you define "credentials". The original picture started with schooling and a degree, then went on to list the research and experiments, resulting in a peer-reviewed journal article, and after all that the response was "b.s." Having been a journal reviewer myself I can attest that things get missed, but my take was that credentials, research, test results, conclusions, all of it was tossed aside by the Internet "expert". Note I do not know Frank Swain, just commenting upon the picture posted. Which I took as just a joke and sad commentary on life today, but of course anything posted these days leads to pages of debate.

 

[ralphf]

I guess it depends upon how you define "credentials". The original picture started with schooling and a degree, then went on to list the research and experiments, resulting in a peer-reviewed journal article, and after all that the response was "b.s." Having been a journal reviewer myself I can attest that things get missed, but my take was that credentials, research, test results, conclusions, all of it was tossed aside by the Internet "expert". Note I do not know Frank Swain, just commenting upon the picture posted. Which I took as just a joke and sad commentary on life today, but of course anything posted these days leads to pages of debate.

I'd much rather hear about why the guy's position was WRONG rather than how unreasonable he is and how credentialed and peer-reviewed the other side is. It's all just appeal to authority -- a fallacy. At the end of day, we are saddled with the responsibility to deal with the arguments of others by refuting them. Appeal to authority and ad hominem attacks are all the rage today, I'll grant you that. Just look at the entire purpose of posting something without even any discussion of what the issues were. The subtext is, sit down and listen to me -- and everyone chimes in agreement without even knowing what the debate is about. I think that says it all right there.

 

[Raindog123]

Good that we still expect serious credentials from those designing our planes, and flying us in those, and developing heart surgery procedures... Both the credentials (aka training) and experience.

 

[ralphf]

Not saying that peer-review is worthless at all, just saying that it is NOT conclusive. Credentials do not end the discussion.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/
https://www.vox.com/2015/12/7/9865086/peer-review-science-problems
https://www.sciencealert.com/this-is-why-a-lot-of-peer-reviewed-research-is-actually-wrong
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/201...eals-about-science-publishing-s-death-penalty
https://www.wired.com/story/peer-reviewed-scientific-journals-dont-really-do-their-job/

 

[ralphf]

Good that we still expect serious credentials from those designing our planes, and flying us in those, and develop heart surgery procedures... Both credentials (aka training) and experience.

Of course. I certainly wasn't saying that credentials are worthless. But you might want to get a second opinion before you lie down for open heart surgery.

 

[Raindog123]

I certainly wasn't saying that credentials are worthless. But you might want to get a second opinion before you lie down for open heart surgery.

Still from an accredited doctor I hope, and not Doctor Facilier?

 

[ralphf]

Still from an accredited doctor I hope?

Again, nobody ever said that credentials aren't important and even necessary. The question is whether they are conclusive and obviate the necessity of dealing with the arguments of others. Hence the reason why people often get second opinions from experts.

 

[Raindog123]

Again, nobody ever said that credentials aren't important and even necessary. The question is whether they are conclusive and obviate the necessity of dealing with the arguments of others. Hence the reason why people often get second opinions from experts.

Do you call Airbus engineers while boarding a Boeing?

 

[ralphf]

Do you call Airbus engineers while boarding Boeing?

I'm not sure what your argument is at this point. I don't think credentials alone end debates. That's my only point and I think it is basically beyond criticism.

 

[AdamG]

Guy’s please avoid Politics and Religion and general medical science arguments. Thank you. If the conversation can not remain civil and respectful this thread will just get closed.

 

[Raindog123]

I don't think credentials alone end debates.

Ah... So you don't call Airbus but instead start a 'debate' before boarding your Boeing flight! Got'ya!

 

[Frank Dernie]

Guy please avoid Politics and Religion and general medical science arguments. Thank you. If the conversation can not remain civil and respectful this thread will just get closed.

I've deleted it.
Pointless now.

 

[AdamG]

If I didn’t delete it, then it’s fine.

 

[AdamG]

Apparently political
WTF has happened to this forum?

This post and attachment was fine. If I indicated otherwise my apologies.