Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Cult Of The Amateur
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 16 of 21 (486604)
10-23-2008 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Phat
10-21-2008 8:36 AM


Phat responds to me:
quote:
Good point, but it depends which field we are talking about.
Who said it didn't? If you want emotional comfort, you would rather have someone who has experience in providing it than someone who doesn't.
You seem to be saying that emotional answers are equivalent to factual answers when nobody here said they were. Since we are seeking factual answers when it comes to science, I am a bit confused as to why you want emotionality to be sufficient.
quote:
My point is that sometimes we don't want experts.
So? That doesn't answer the question: When did being one of the "educated elite" become a bad thing? Your example of the "professor of comparative theology" assumes that he is incapable of giving you what you need. Said professor can be good at more than one thing, you know. The fact that he knows the theory doesn't mean he has no style or flair or sensitivity.
And when it comes to science, why on earth would we not want experts? When did being an expert become a bad thing when the goal is to find accurate descriptions of the world around us?
quote:
Sometimes we would rather try the folk medicine at the local vitamin cottage
And how does that change the reality of whether or not said folk medicine actually does anything?
quote:
Amateurs have a role to play in society, I think.
And I never said they didn't. In fact, I specifically said the opposite. I even gave examples of times where the amateur provides a valued and needed service.
However, an amateur will never be able to do what the expert can: Provide thoroughness. That is important when it comes to having accurate descriptions.
Michael Faraday was a brilliant scientist...but his lack of formal training made it very difficult to accept his results. He had a good, intuitive sense of the nature of light, but he was unable to provide the formal structure that would make it able to do real work in science. It required Maxwell to provide that thoroughness and it was only after Maxwell was able to provide the formal framework that progress was able to be made.
Again, Fermat is the perfect example of the talented amateur. He's one of the most respected mathematicians out there despite having no real formal training in it.
But, it required actual experts to provide the formal justification for his claims. Why? Because despite the fact that he was often right, he made some huge mistakes along the way. Because he was not an expert, because he was unable to be thorough, because he could not provide the formal structure, his pronouncements could not be trusted.
So once again, why it is a bad thing to be an expert? Why is it a bad thing to have answers to questions? To be able to justify them? To provide large scale descriptions that elucidate small scale issues?
quote:
Sometimes I like reading blogs about the presidential debates and read unverifiable opinions and rumors rather than reading the New York Times.
And that's fine. Naivete is very good for getting questions asked.
It's terrible for actually answering them, though.
quote:
Sometimes folklore just makes me feel better than cold hard facts.
That you find facts "cold" and "hard" is telling. That you are hinting that those who value formal analysis seem to be emotionless automatons is telling.
quote:
I think, (without having read more than a third of the book) that the authors point was that amateur sources and written content now threatens to overshadow legitimate sources and informational content and that it takes an astute and critical reader to be able to accurately discern real information.
Indeed. And your denigration of those who endeavour to be astute and critical readers is telling.
When did being smart and capable become a bad thing?

Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 10-21-2008 8:36 AM Phat has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by cavediver, posted 10-23-2008 3:47 AM Rrhain has not replied
 Message 19 by Phat, posted 11-21-2008 10:31 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3644 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 17 of 21 (486605)
10-23-2008 3:47 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Rrhain
10-23-2008 3:20 AM


When did being smart and capable become a bad thing?
when was it not? Anti-intellectualism is rife, over here, here at EvC, and on your side of the pond it seems to be a (semi) national raison-d'etre. You see, Rrhain, you may have a maths degree and all that acting-nonsense, but you just have no common-sense...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Rrhain, posted 10-23-2008 3:20 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2513 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 18 of 21 (486621)
10-23-2008 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by johnfolton
09-08-2008 5:28 AM


Re: The Professional verses the Amateur
Of course, Usain Bolt is a professional sprinter.
Since we're talking about the infusion of mass-opinion and little fact-checking, here's an article on Usain Bolt's professional career from wikipedia.
Usain Bolt - Wikipedia
He turned professional in 2004. Four years before he set the records in the 08 olympics. No doubt that he's talented, but to say he's an amateur would be false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by johnfolton, posted 09-08-2008 5:28 AM johnfolton has not replied

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 18262
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 19 of 21 (489023)
11-21-2008 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Rrhain
10-23-2008 3:20 AM


Fast Food Information
Rrhain writes:
Since we are seeking factual answers when it comes to science, I am a bit confused as to why you want emotionality to be sufficient.
We live in an age of "fast food" information. Many students are now taught to google information for their assignments...I myself became quite adept at doing this in my entry level college history exams. (They were too easy! You were given the entire list of possible questions to be asked on the exam, and were expected to know the list! )
Perhaps in the higher academic disciplines, where factual information is imperative, there is no room for Wikipedia. For the majority of the rest of society, however, we want fast, cheap information and would expect it to be truthful as well! (Just as, in my "fast food" analogy, people not only want a burger and fries in under a minute but they would really like it to be healthy as well!)
Rrhain writes:
When did being smart and capable become a bad thing?
It never has been a bad thing so much as simply taking too much time and effort for the average information seeker. (aka first year college student)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Rrhain, posted 10-23-2008 3:20 AM Rrhain has not replied

  
duckyboy1975
Junior Member (Idle past 5313 days)
Posts: 2
Joined: 09-10-2009


Message 20 of 21 (523454)
09-10-2009 12:24 PM


Great book, just finished it. This thread has helped a lot to understand some of the more esoteric themes.
_______________
Not life, but good life, is to be chiefly valued. — Socrates
car alarm led light nitro rc cars

  
caffeine
Member (Idle past 1025 days)
Posts: 1800
From: Prague, Czech Republic
Joined: 10-22-2008


Message 21 of 21 (523560)
09-11-2009 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by Phat
10-21-2008 8:36 AM


Re: Warm Fuzzies versus Facts
I think, (without having read more than a third of the book) that the authors point was that amateur sources and written content now threatens to overshadow legitimate sources and informational content and that it takes an astute and critical reader to be able to accurately discern real information.
When I hear this problem being discussed, I've never understood how this is supposed to differ from the state of affairs in the past. There has always been ignorant nonsense out there, much of it written in legitimate newspapers and the like. All the internet has done is made it easier for more people to put their ignorant nonsense out there, while at the same time providing the astute and critical reader with a wealth of information to fact-check what they do read.
If I'd read some unsubstantiated claim in a newspaper or pamphlet 20 years ago, there would often have been be little I could do to ascertain its accuracy without dedicating a considerable amount of time to research. Now I can sometimes find out in five minutes through judicious use of Google.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Phat, posted 10-21-2008 8:36 AM Phat has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024