Depends, if we're being pedantic crazy implies you get some stuff wrong, due to not "being" fully there.
This world is a messy complicated place and I tend to think in percentages about everything. Guarantees are rare, I usually think of events as probabilistic, and likewise what other people say.
Now, these probabilities can change based on who's saying what. Theoretically someone who specialized in that topic has a higher chance of "getting it right", or sussing it better than people who aren't as versed in that subject. That's what academia is, and if it wouldn't work we wouldn't do it.
So, for me it does matter who's saying what, but only to some extent. That means even the most educated, smart and focused individual can get it wrong, and some nobody with no training on the subject can get it right, for various reasons, even pure chance.
So I'm never discarding someone's opinion based on who the are or their training, but I do consider the chances of them being right or wrong. There was a recent discussion about Nobelitis.
> Theoretically someone who specialized in that topic has a higher chance of "getting it right", or sussing it better than people who aren't as versed in that subject.
Exactly so. The qualifications are a heuristic, not a rule. That said - There are billions of ill-informed halfwits on earth and all or most have opinions.
People need some way to filter all of those opinions, especially now that the media doesn't do it for us. A lossy heuristic that only works most of the time beats the heck out of drowning in an endless sea of babble.
Depends, if we're being pedantic crazy implies you get some stuff wrong, due to not "being" fully there.
This world is a messy complicated place and I tend to think in percentages about everything. Guarantees are rare, I usually think of events as probabilistic, and likewise what other people say.
Now, these probabilities can change based on who's saying what. Theoretically someone who specialized in that topic has a higher chance of "getting it right", or sussing it better than people who aren't as versed in that subject. That's what academia is, and if it wouldn't work we wouldn't do it.
So, for me it does matter who's saying what, but only to some extent. That means even the most educated, smart and focused individual can get it wrong, and some nobody with no training on the subject can get it right, for various reasons, even pure chance.
So I'm never discarding someone's opinion based on who the are or their training, but I do consider the chances of them being right or wrong. There was a recent discussion about Nobelitis.
> Theoretically someone who specialized in that topic has a higher chance of "getting it right", or sussing it better than people who aren't as versed in that subject.
Exactly so. The qualifications are a heuristic, not a rule. That said - There are billions of ill-informed halfwits on earth and all or most have opinions.
People need some way to filter all of those opinions, especially now that the media doesn't do it for us. A lossy heuristic that only works most of the time beats the heck out of drowning in an endless sea of babble.