Does training in X equal competency in Y?

[DesertAttorney 0]

I see a lot of people with training/expertise in one discipline trying to pass said training/expertise off as constituting competence or authority on a completely different area.

Examples being:

-a person with no training in economics trying to authoritatively discuss the roots of the faults of the Economy;

-someone with no criminology training trying to authoritatively discuss the roots of/solutions to crime;

-A person with a liberal arts background trying to authoritatively discuss a hard science issue (and vice versa)

Appeals to authority are such an arrogant debate tool, especially when one does not have the pedigree for said authority or tries to pass off a completely inappropriate pedigree as being authoritative...

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Pedigree isn't automatically necessary for competence.

I'm not a lawyer, but I know a lot about how the courts function and how the laws work.

I'm not a criminologist, but I know a lot about roots and solutions to crimes.

I'm not an economist, but I know a lot about economics.

And pedigree doesn't automatically make one authoritative.
There's a lot of stupid people with degrees out there. I know lawyers who's advice isn't worth the effort to listen to it.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I see a lot of people with training/expertise in one discipline trying to pass said training/expertise off as constituting competence or authority on a completely different area.

You'll probably need to be specific here. I don't recall too many instances of it for cross purposes. I do remember some welders showing off their credentials.

Quote

-a person with no training in economics trying to authoritatively discuss the roots of the faults of the Economy;

Given how wildly economists disagree, despite training in the same "science," does one really need "training" to debate the subject?

Quote

-someone with no criminology training trying to authoritatively discuss the roots of/solutions to crime;

likewise. We're talking about a social science here. Aside from not ignoring contrary data, how much training as a cop should they need? (and can we get the cops some more training in civil liberties?)

The scientific method is cross discipline and even liberal arts majors can utilize it. It's not rocket science.

[quade 3]

You'd be surprised at how many birds have no formal training in aerodynamics.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Belgian_Draft 0]

Quote

You'd be surprised at how many bird have no formal training in aerodynamics.

But not a one of them can discuss the subject with any authority. In fact, I challenge you to find a single one that hs even the most basic understanding of CFD.

HAMMER:
Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a
kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the
object we are trying to hit.

[champu 1]

Quote

It's not rocket science.

Hey now. I'll decide what is or isn't rocket science.

[Bertt 0]

1) How do you know they have no training in Y?
2) A careful observer or hobbyist can sometimes develop a lot of expertise even though its informal.

One of the best computer programmers I know has a degree in English. Another one is a professional concert cellist on the side.
I never met anybody who didn't know more about something than I do, but it wasn't always obvious what that something might be.

You don't have to outrun the bear.

[normiss 620]

My favorite?

The extreme sports "athlete", like a dirt bike rider.
They have mad skills.
Go straight to base jumping.
Then wingsuits on skydive #3.

[lawrocket 3]

I see it. It doesn't mean they can't add anything. The thing is - the expertise is dependent on the subject and the underlying discussion.

Economics, for example. I don't have to be a chef to decide whether something tastes good to me. Nor do I need training to discuss the taste and texture. Sure, while others may describe the earthy goodness of a mushroom, I can say, "earthy is a fancy word for tastes like dirt."

My best friend is a ph.d in economics. He and I would discuss things because the science of the maths behind it are fine but what about the politics.

The problem that we run in to is when we have people who are arguing matters that are factual with an expert. For example, someone telling me that the Constitution doesn't apply to the insane. You or I can say "Yes it does" but they won't agree because they don't think it should.

In some cases, these people could probably meet 720 standards but usually not. But when we get to what people are talking about, often they aren't talking about "economics" so much as they are talking about THEIR economics. And for that they are perfectly competent. It's turning anecdote into a generality.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[emmiwy 0]

Quote

I see a lot of people with training/expertise in one discipline trying to pass said training/expertise off as constituting competence or authority on a completely different area.

Examples being:

-a person with no training in economics trying to authoritatively discuss the roots of the faults of the Economy;

-someone with no criminology training trying to authoritatively discuss the roots of/solutions to crime;

-A person with a liberal arts background trying to authoritatively discuss a hard science issue (and vice versa)

I am curious, what is your definition of being an authority or having competence in a particular domain?