Talk:Expert

Moved from article

Dear Wikipedia experts, lol

First of all I must deeply apologize for my flaming of yesterday on the subject "Grand Unifying Theory" (GUT) and objections to it's general objective. As I still hope to contribute someday in some way to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, possibly even on this subject soon I have to explain a little bit more; I hope the form of an ill-directed email like this one might even contribute.

First my credentials

Bastiaan Peter Blankert (m) born 4-11-1964.Utrecht NL, Raised in an extremely artistically,scientifically historically medically and politically oriented family in the mid '60's through '80. (alfa interests) 2 1/2 years US 6 months High School in the Community New Haven Ct., including american law, history, literature. 1980 first interest in computers, book of facts, book of records etc. Freethinking Protestant Gymnasium The Hague, major interests science (physics) and history, drawing and screenplay/free expression . Six years of Law at University of Amsterdam, majoring under Joep van der Vliet in Spinoza's philosophy (in a jewish perspective), on the dissolution of the Scholastic concept of God by Spinoza into a single substance comprising the attributes "Thought" and "extension" among infinite other attributes as well as a comparison between western and japanese legal practise and computer science (mrs. muntjewerff), culminating in title of knowledge engineer and master of law. Editor of "magazine for everything" (tijdschrift voor alles) in 1989-1990 (idea realized more perfectly by internet itself; warning for rise of war in middle east after cold war was over and against the stifling influence of burocracy over honest old fashioned natural live, interests include neanderthal, ancient through contemporary art, extreme christianity and many religious sects. Legal practise (assistant to lawyer 4 years), hobby and expertise momentarily especially in 13th century BC development of monotheism under moses and akhnaton, including the question which of the aforementioned came up with the idea first. Three years ago I still tended to Achnaton very clearly, at present I find the idea they were together in a think-tank on religion created by Amenhotep III most pleasant. The general outline of my still unpublished ideas remains monotheism was first brought to prominence in Egypt, then discarded and never has there been any proof monotheism is any way superior to polytheism and hardly any philosophical religious problem wasn't handled expertly by Egyptian priests in huge seminars. Other interests include Unitheism, global currency unit, platinum price and hylic pluralism. A fellow expert (running art gallery and bookstore), by the name of Erdwin suggested a conference in Egypt to solve present day intra-monotheistic conflicts, including other-religious input of course.

Returning to the Grand Unification Theory and my personal opposition to it, first of all the opposition is religious, not scientific, as a full blown worked out proven Grand Unification Theory would somehow suggest monotheists were Right after all it seems a bit, allthough to my personal opinion even definitive proof of GUT would not in any way invalidate any form of polytheism, especially using the attributes of Spinoza . AS OF NOW THE GRAND UNIFICATION THEORY IS NO MORE THAN A RELIGION, in the sense it is something people somehow like to believe, and awaiting real sensible evidence, should not be treated as more than a sectarian idea. Spinoza's Ethics might be viewed as an early attempt at reaching The Grand Unification Theory. (1665)

As for my expertise on physics, I didn't grasp much beyond Einsteins differences of opionion with Bohr on quantum-mechanics, but this is clearly meant as an alfa opposition against a beta-idea, but this is possible, since final proof is still pending... The flipped SU(5) model seems highly promising, but it clearly beats my beta-mind.

yours sincerely,

(intending to distill this material into sensible lemma sap)

bas blankert —[The preceding unsigned comment was added to the mainspace article by 87.210.1.7 (talk • contribs) , at 23:38, on 15 June 2006 (UTC). Soon after, moved here to Talk page by another editor at 23:41, 15 June 2006.]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.210.1.7 (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think Orson Welles helped prove in his brilliant film F for Fake, that the idea of experts and expertise is largely nonsense. There are specialists but the idea that someone has grasp of secret knowledge wreaks of something like a priest or divine providence. Any person thoroughly knowledgable on a subject would be hesitant to use such a word to describe themselves or accept the word being applied to them. After all the first lesson in philosophy is always the more you know the more you realize how little you know from Socrates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.224.253 (talk) 09:33, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Too wide a definition?

Is it really enough to be recognised by the public? The American geologist Steven Dutch has a text on his home page explaining his definition of “expert”. This rather angry text is primary aimed for people which wrongfully think they are experts. (In my opinion he has the right to be angry at people which denies his expertise.) However, his main point is that in order to be an expert you either need to have a formal qualification or be treated as an equal by people with such qualifications. An example of a person who is an expert according to this article's definition but not according to Steven’s is Danah Zohar. She has repeatedly been called a quantum physicist. Yet her ideas are incredibly far from the scientific consensus. I think she has read a lot without ever realizing that the descriptions referred only to physical conditions and processes on the atomic and sub-atomic scale. Consequentially, she has fundamentally misunderstood them in psychological and social terms. In my opinion she is not a quantum physicist but a quantum mystic. I would absolutely not consider her an expert which is why I support Steven’s definition.

2010-08-23 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.70 (talk) 11:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Germain scale - Is it important?

I never read anything about the Germain scale before even though I have been conducting my own research on experts since two years. Maybe it is just my fault that I don't know about this because Germain's work is in an area separate from mine.

I think the specific research of one scientist should only be so prominent in a Wikpedia article if it is firstly essential for the whole research topic and secondly if it is referenced by many other scientists. The status quo seems to be e little bit of an advertisement.

I also don't understand why the Germain scale is cited in the the paragraph and not below with the other references. Lastly, I think an unpublished PhD thesis is not a good source.

Maybe the paragraph is just more or less copy paste from here:

• https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Generalized_Expertise_Measure

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.197.233.55 (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Untitled – no content

2600:8800:8000:6100:55C1:EED2:90B2:9AB5 (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

unbanned my account 105.245.8.118 (talk) 00:43, 25 November 2023 (UTC)