Credentials v. Validity

[reviewer-general]

The following is an excerpt from Noam Chomsky's book "Language and Responsibility". Any errors in transcription, spelling, etc. are mine.

"Compare mathematics and the political sciences--it's quite striking. In mathematics, in physics, people are concerned with what you say, not with your certification. But in order to speak about social reality, you must have the proper credentials, particularly if you depart from the accepted framework of thinking. Generally speaking, it seems fair to say that the richer the intellectual substance of a field, the less concern there is for credentials, and the greater is the concern for content. One might even argue that to deal with substantive issues in the ideological disciplines may be a dangerous thing, because these disciplines are not simply concerned with with discovering and explaining the facts as they are; rather, they tend to present them in a manner that conforms to certain ideological requirements, and to become dangerous to established interests if they do not do so."

----

So, my question to you is:

Just because a person does not specialize or have personal experience or work professionally in a field, does that mean they are not entitled to enter into a debate or discussion on the subject or offer their theories and opinions on that subject? Or does it somehow mean that what they have to say on the subject can be ignored or disregarded as invalid?

;
----

| Chomsky, Noam. Language and Responsibility. New York:
| Flammarion, 1977.

[BrianEtrius]

I believe that anyone can argue, but few can argue correctly.

Look, in a debate, I could care less about your background. I'm a Law major, so if I'm in a courtroom arguing my head off I could care less if you got your law degree from Harvard or a State College. I don't care if you have only a Masters or if you think your so smart because you have a PhD. My only concern is that can you argue your position to the point that I am proven wrong.

Furthermore, if you say something correct in a field that is not your specialty than you can go on and on as long as you know what you are talking about.

However, information is a double edge sword.

Sure it helps if you know what you are talking about. Sure it helps if you specialize in that particular field. But in the end it depends on how you argue. Because if you can't argue correctly, why argue at all?

[Al6200]

At 11/30/08 04:18 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

The following is an excerpt from Noam Chomsky's book "Language and Responsibility". Any errors in transcription, spelling, etc. are mine.

"Compare mathematics and the political sciences--it's quite striking. In mathematics, in physics, people are concerned with what you say, not with your certification. But in order to speak about social reality, you must have the proper credentials, particularly if you depart from the accepted framework of thinking. Generally speaking, it seems fair to say that the richer the intellectual substance of a field, the less concern there is for credentials, and the greater is the concern for content. One might even argue that to deal with substantive issues in the ideological disciplines may be a dangerous thing, because these disciplines are not simply concerned with with discovering and explaining the facts as they are; rather, they tend to present them in a manner that conforms to certain ideological requirements, and to become dangerous to established interests if they do not do so."

I don't disagree with Chomsky here. There are certain majors like "Women's Studies" or "Peace Studies" where there is obviously an ideology being promoted.

However I would argue that all fields, perhaps excepting mathematics, do have a value system. For example physicists will support theories which are useful and scientifically valid. That value system is very popular today, but it is still a value system that not everyone accepts. So in a way physicists are not just concerned with facts, they are concerned with their own ideological bias.

So, my question to you is:

Just because a person does not specialize or have personal experience or work professionally in a field, does that mean they are not entitled to enter into a debate or discussion on the subject or offer their theories and opinions on that subject? Or does it somehow mean that what they have to say on the subject can be ignored or disregarded as invalid?

It's a tough question. If you let people with no qualifications debate, then you run the risk of rhetorical no-nothings taking sway over public opinion (Consider Young Earth Creationism). But if you require qualifications, then you run the risk of excluding people who had the knowledge to get the qualification, but choose not to because they would see it as submission to a certain ideology, or because they didn't have the money to take the steps to acquire it (Consider only allowing people with degrees from Yale to talk about economics. I might understand economics, but not be able to go to Yale because it's too expensive).

[marchohare]

At 11/30/08 04:26 PM, BrianEtrius wrote: ...I'm a Law major....

Ah, then you are unlikely to find a worthy opponent here, Grasshopper.

[heroicspatula]

I would have to agree with BrianEtrius above me. I don't care about what your qualifications are, if you can raise good points and argue with/against me well then I don't care if your a rocket scientist or a hobo.

[reviewer-general]

Shameless bump, because there's got to be some differing opinions out there.

;

[MortifiedPenguins]

The actual validity of your opinion doesn't matter in comparison to what people percieve the wieght of your opinion and it's realibility.

In short, you need the credibility for people to actually think that that your right or even listen to you.

[reviewer-general]

At 12/1/08 11:15 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: The actual validity of your opinion doesn't matter in comparison to what people percieve the wieght of your opinion and it's realibility.

In short, you need the credibility for people to actually think that that your right or even listen to you.

I believe you missed the point here, to an extent;

What you posted was the way things are as it is, and I do not disagree with this analysis; however, I was asking for your own opinion on whether or not people should be allowed to offer their theories and analysis on "social realit[ies]" without necessarily be criticized, disparaged, and written off for not having the credentials to necessarily give it that weight.

Chomsky believes, and I tend to agree with him, that anyone can offer reasonable debate on a subject in the realm of social or political sciences as long as they possess "a bit of open-mindedness, normal intelligence, and healthy skepticism".

;

[stafffighter]

At 12/2/08 06:20 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

Chomsky believes, and I tend to agree with him, that anyone can offer reasonable debate on a subject in the realm of social or political sciences as long as they possess "a bit of open-mindedness, normal intelligence, and healthy skepticism".

;

This is something that came up for me a while ago in a thread I made about how when my parents were children it was a lot safer to hang around in the sun than it is now. I was bombarded with people assuming that my parents were indeed not respected scientists. Respected scientists are the ones complicating what you would think would be an easily quantifiable issue.

[Conspiracy3]

At 11/30/08 04:18 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

Just because a person does not specialize or have personal experience or work professionally in a field, does that mean they are not entitled to enter into a debate or discussion on the subject or offer their theories and opinions on that subject? Or does it somehow mean that what they have to say on the subject can be ignored or disregarded as invalid?

Of course they should be aloud to debate and discuss I don't think anyone questions that. I do think that the people who actually make decisions do need experience, but since I think you are alluding to the Obama McCain election (correct me if I'm wrong) I think that Obama's experience was perfectly adequate. He had some experience in areas that McCain had none. For instance he has lived as a common person in a third world country - very few politicians really understand the issues dealt with in poor nations and Obama has a better understanding of it.

[TheMason]

At 11/30/08 04:18 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

The following is an excerpt from Noam Chomsky's book "Language and Responsibility". Any errors in transcription, spelling, etc. are mine.

"Compare mathematics and the political sciences--it's quite striking. In mathematics, in physics, people are concerned with what you say, not with your certification. But in order to speak about social reality, you must have the proper credentials, particularly if you depart from the accepted framework of thinking. Generally speaking, it seems fair to say that the richer the intellectual substance of a field, the less concern there is for credentials, and the greater is the concern for content. One might even argue that to deal with substantive issues in the ideological disciplines may be a dangerous thing, because these disciplines are not simply concerned with with discovering and explaining the facts as they are; rather, they tend to present them in a manner that conforms to certain ideological requirements, and to become dangerous to established interests if they do not do so."

----

One of the things that is interesting here is that Chomsky is violating his own search for truth in talking about "Political Sciences". What he is talking about is the "studies" programs such as Gender, Peace, American and various Ethnicities. In thise academic endeavors, the students and faculty are ideologically driven. However, in political science we attempt to apply the scientific method and a branch of mathematics (statistics) to understand political behavior.

Furthermore, if you look at political science journals you'll see that we have people in there publishing who do not have PhDs.

So, my question to you is:

Just because a person does not specialize or have personal experience or work professionally in a field, does that mean they are not entitled to enter into a debate or discussion on the subject or offer their theories and opinions on that subject? Or does it somehow mean that what they have to say on the subject can be ignored or disregarded as invalid?

I think there is a difference between having formal, informal and no credentials. You do not go to a mechanic if you're having chest pains. You seek the trained opinion of a certified professional. Does this mean that credentials and professional certifications/licenses mean a person is infallible? No, absolutely not. However, I do believe that crentials are an indicator of the degree of validity of a person's opinion.

For example I post alot about gun control and one of the things that annoy me the most are those people who post, as if it is absurdly obvious, that assault weapons should be banned because they are not useful for hunting or against a modern military.

1) Hunting is a combination of art and science. One has to be skilled to track game (it is not as easy a non-hunters think). One also has to have a basic understanding of ballistics and how guns & bullets work (the science part). If a person is not a hunter nor do they understand the science behind ballistic...how can they even entertain the notion that they can hold a valid opinion on what guns are or are not good for hunting? Their opinons are not based in anything but emotion.

2) In Vietnam, Afghanistan, Somalia, Kosovo and Iraq the US and USSR militaries found themselves in a difficult fight against fighters armed with little more than AK-47s. Students of military history and/or science as well as military professionals understand that determined guerrilla fighters can overcome the technology gap frightfully easily. So then why do people who have not studied military science think their opinions are just as valid as someone who has knowledge and/or practical experience in the subject?

I guess what I'm trying to say is would a person who has been blind since birth have a valid opinion on the color of the sky? No, color depends upon the ability to see and if someone lacks this ability then why would their opinion that the sky is red be valid?

However, like I said credentials does not mean one is infallible. If a surgeon has to operate on a limb it is common practice for the patient or nurse to use a permanent marker to write "NOT THIS LIMB/JOINT" so the wrong knee is not operated on or the wrong limp amputated. Furthermore, I am not an education snob (despite my arrogant reputation). I have known people who have dropped out of High School who know more about politics than people who have graduated from law or medical school.

[HogWashSoup]

In a debate or argument, shooting the opponent in the head is a sure way to win.

[reviewer-general]

At 12/3/08 10:55 PM, TheMason wrote: stuff

And I agree with you for the most part, as with the examples you gave.

But Chomsky also says:

"You don't ask the man in the street how to build a bridge, do you? You turn to a professional expert. Very well, in the same way you should not ask the man in the street: Must we intervene in Angola? Here one needs professionals-- very carefully selected, to be sure."

So, in cases of policy decisions or advisory positions, of course you want someone who knows that they are talking about. But, merely to interpret societal situations and facts, does one need to have credentials to back up the voiced opinion? Sure, they add weight, but is it fair to raise the issue of whether someone has the right to offer discussion on, say, the war in Iraq. If someone without credentials offers a theory to explain something, that does not mean the theory can not be valid and worthy of consideration for more exploration or widespread application to life situations.

Basically, my question aims at the heart of debate on Newgrounds. Here, anyone and everyone can, within reason, offer their debates and opinions and theories on whatever they wish. And it works. Should society be more open to ideas from "untrained" sources?

;

[MultiCanimefan]

At 12/5/08 04:32 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

At 12/3/08 10:55 PM, TheMason wrote:

If someone without credentials offers a theory to explain something, that does not mean the theory can not be valid and worthy of consideration for more exploration or widespread application to life situations.

Reviewer, the theory isn't considered less valid so much than it is considered foolish. In other words, let's say I do indeed ask a person totally unfamiliar with warfare and politics their theory on how the Iraq War should be handled. In order for his/her theory to make sense within the given guidelines for what makes a rational and logical theory in an objective and known event, in this case, war, he/she must have the proper credentials if wished to be taken seriously. When dealing with Philosophy, anyone's theory is acceptable because it is ultimately subjective and not known. However, when dealing with something as defined as warfare and politics, it's essential that they know what they are talking about, lest they get us all killed.

Basically, my question aims at the heart of debate on Newgrounds. Here, anyone and everyone can, within reason, offer their debates and opinions and theories on whatever they wish. And it works. Should society be more open to ideas from "untrained" sources?

It really depends on the subject matter that these "untrained" sources are discussing. The key word here is reason, whose rational application is dependent on the situation. It means different things in different situations.

[Cornbucket]

At 12/5/08 04:32 PM, reviewer-general wrote: Should society be more open to ideas from "untrained" sources?

What with the whole "blogosphere" thing, I think it already is.

If a person doesn't have relevant credentials pertaining to the topic of discussion, they still have a right to offer their opinion. They shouldn't be judged by their credentials, they should be judged by the content of their argument.

It's really just a matter of perception. What if the person has the HIGHEST credentials and just chooses not to reveal them? You may assume they know jack shit, but they could've written THE book on whatever it is you're discussing. On the flipside you can have a stupid "appeal to authority" type of situation going on where there's more focus placed on the high credentials of the person instead of the argument itself, as if the argument is actually made valid BY the credentials.

Everyone has a right to share their view (however uninformed it may or may not be) but I think it's important to keep in mind that our backgrounds and experiences DO shape what our views will be, so knowing about a person's background (as in, whether they have the cred or not, and in what fields, etc) can only HELP with understanding how they actually formed their argument/opinion.

[Der-Lowe]

At 12/5/08 04:32 PM, reviewer-general wrote:

:Should society be more open to ideas from "untrained" sources?

;

-;

I think people should be less arrogant about knowledge in general; if you have acquired a knowledge of a sort, you should not use this wealth you have to diminish the others. In discussions, if you see that the other person makes large mistakes from his lack of training in the subject he is discussing, you should politely try to teach him, not give him the general "stfu n00b". If you come to be "teh n00bz", you have even less right to believe in your superiority, and should have a cautious approach to the topic of discussion, like achilles here.

srsly we should mod him

In anyway, I believe the OP's question is invalid, a debate, as imperator etymologically has explained, is not about winning or losing (a very American view on the world), but to share thoughts, points of view, and lead to an enrichment of both person's minds. Should a person who does not know much a topic engage in a process to learn about it? Certainly.