The Death of Expertise

[fromderinside]

Do you think that uploading a video is working on a computer? It pushing the start button on a car working on a car? Don't think so.

 

[untermensche]

Don't blame me for your sloppiness.

Working on a computer can mean several things.

 

[fromderinside]

Not really. When taken in context with your bleat that a motorcycle mechanic can easily prove their expertise without defining appropriate environiment for demonstrating such proof it is perfectly adequate. If you check a motorcycle mechanic probably can't operate a computer, program a computer, or demonstrate mechanics on a computer.

The point is your claim is worthless as a conditional proof.

Besides is a motor cycle mechanic an expert in the common sense that of one who possesses great knowledge and skill. Or, as more likely, she is one who has had a basic course or internship in the process of motorcycle maintenance and repair which is more in the area of minimum skill worker or laborer, not worthy of being called expert at all.

 

[untermensche]

Not really. When taken in context with your bleat that a motorcycle mechanic can easily prove their expertise without defining appropriate environiment for demonstrating such proof it is perfectly adequate.

But you forgot to say he had to do it on the planet Earth.

How stupid!

 

[fromderinside]

-nm

 

[Subsymbolic]

Not really. When taken in context with your bleat that a motorcycle mechanic can easily prove their expertise without defining appropriate environiment for demonstrating such proof it is perfectly adequate.

But you forgot to say he had to do it on the planet Earth.

How stupid!

Actually, and not ironically at all, the only difference between, say, the mechanic and the philosopher is Dunning Kruger. Both fixing a motor and writing philosophy have very clear constraints, rules and criteria for success. However, in the case of the mechanic there are non technical criteria for success which can be appreciated by the layman without being understood. In the case of philosophy, there is a significant technical training that needs to be undertaken before one can either do or judge philosophy. As such a non mechanic can judge a repair job by the performance of the vehicle. To a non philosopher there is little appreciable difference between well evidenced and reasoned argument and plausible bullshit. So really all you are telling everyone is that you have no training in critical thinking and thus can't tell the difference.

 

[untermensche]

Not really. When taken in context with your bleat that a motorcycle mechanic can easily prove their expertise without defining appropriate environiment for demonstrating such proof it is perfectly adequate.

But you forgot to say he had to do it on the planet Earth.

How stupid!

Actually, and not ironically at all, the only difference between, say, the mechanic and the philosopher is Dunning Kruger. Both fixing a motor and writing philosophy have very clear constraints, rules and criteria for success. However, in the case of the mechanic there are non technical criteria for success which can be appreciated by the layman without being understood. In the case of philosophy, there is a significant technical training that needs to be undertaken before one can either do or judge philosophy. As such a non mechanic can judge a repair job by the performance of the vehicle. To a non philosopher there is little appreciable difference between well evidenced and reasoned argument and plausible bullshit. So really all you are telling everyone is that you have no training in critical thinking and thus can't tell the difference.

The constraints of philosophy are capricious arbitrary and an illusion.

No such constraints actually exist.

Constraints do exist in narrow minds.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Actually, and not ironically at all, the only difference between, say, the mechanic and the philosopher is Dunning Kruger. Both fixing a motor and writing philosophy have very clear constraints, rules and criteria for success. However, in the case of the mechanic there are non technical criteria for success which can be appreciated by the layman without being understood. In the case of philosophy, there is a significant technical training that needs to be undertaken before one can either do or judge philosophy. As such a non mechanic can judge a repair job by the performance of the vehicle. To a non philosopher there is little appreciable difference between well evidenced and reasoned argument and plausible bullshit. So really all you are telling everyone is that you have no training in critical thinking and thus can't tell the difference.

The constraints of philosophy are capricious arbitrary and an illusion.

No such constraints actually exist.

Constraints do exist in narrow minds.

The constraint of philosophy is the discipline of logic. Bare assertion, sprinkled with insults, doesn't cut it.

 

[untermensche]

Actually, and not ironically at all, the only difference between, say, the mechanic and the philosopher is Dunning Kruger. Both fixing a motor and writing philosophy have very clear constraints, rules and criteria for success. However, in the case of the mechanic there are non technical criteria for success which can be appreciated by the layman without being understood. In the case of philosophy, there is a significant technical training that needs to be undertaken before one can either do or judge philosophy. As such a non mechanic can judge a repair job by the performance of the vehicle. To a non philosopher there is little appreciable difference between well evidenced and reasoned argument and plausible bullshit. So really all you are telling everyone is that you have no training in critical thinking and thus can't tell the difference.

The constraints of philosophy are capricious arbitrary and an illusion.

No such constraints actually exist.

Constraints do exist in narrow minds.

The constraint of philosophy is the discipline of logic. Bare assertion, sprinkled with insults, doesn't cut it.

You have nothing but a bare assertion.

 

[bilby]

The constraint of philosophy is the discipline of logic. Bare assertion, sprinkled with insults, doesn't cut it.

You have nothing but a bare assertion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection doesn't cut it either.

 

[untermensche]

Good little boy.

Don't post any ideas.

You have been shown to be a fool too many times when you do that.

Just stick your tongue out and drool.

 

[bilby]

Good little boy.

Don't post any ideas.

You have been shown to be a fool too many times when you do that.

Just stick your tongue out and drool.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

 

[untermensche]

Yes. Stick the tongue out.

It is all you are capable of doing.

What could a philosopher prove about their expertise?

What would be their test?

Who would decide if they passed or failed?

The mechanic needs nobody to tell them if they passed.

 

[beero1000]

Like playing chess with a pigeon.

 

[untermensche]

Like playing chess with a pigeon.

That would be your test for a philosopher?

Might tell us something?

 

[Subsymbolic]

The constraint of philosophy is the discipline of logic. Bare assertion, sprinkled with insults, doesn't cut it.

You have nothing but a bare assertion.

Actually, I assumed it was common knowledge and you'd just need reminding. My bad. Is it logic you don't believe in, or the assertion that philosophers are constrained by it?

Logic is the only way of moving from true premises to true conclusions. It's a way of preserving a truth value across an argument and allows those who have been trained in it to think, write and evaluate more clearly. I'd rather assume that's enough.

 

[untermensche]

The constraint of philosophy is the discipline of logic. Bare assertion, sprinkled with insults, doesn't cut it.

You have nothing but a bare assertion.

Actually, I assumed it was common knowledge and you'd just need reminding. My bad. Is it logic you don't believe in, or the assertion that philosophers are constrained by it?

Logic is the only way of moving from true premises to true conclusions. It's a way of preserving a truth value across an argument and allows those who have been trained in it to think, write and evaluate more clearly. I'd rather assume that's enough.

I believe that when humans invent games they invent rules for the games.

Yes there are rules to the game called "logic" some people play.

Logic is a game like football or Old Maid or Go Fish.

It can be played over and over without end.

Is football a constraint on sports?

 

[beero1000]

Like playing chess with a pigeon.

That would be your test for a philosopher?

Might tell us something?

 

[Subsymbolic]

Yes. Stick the tongue out.

It is all you are capable of doing.

I can't see the pots for the kettles here.

What could a philosopher prove about their expertise?

What would be their test?

To another philosopher, about thirty seconds of conversation would establish the basics. Apparently there are exams and everything. I assume they grade them randomly.

Who would decide if they passed or failed?

You are joking, right? Someone with the appropriate qualifications, of course.

The mechanic needs nobody to tell them if they passed.

Well I don';t know about the US, but in the UK, these fine folk seem to have that role:

https://www.theimi.org.uk

The fact is that both becoming a mechanic and a philosopher require a demanding technical training and you are unlikely to get a job as either without the requisite qualifications.

Sure anyone can claim to be a mechanic or a philosopher.

However, when they pick up a spanner, open their mouth or try to write a clear argument, they will be revealed as frauds if there is anyone competent in the room. However, both specialities have their autodidacts who can prove their chops without a complete formal education. Of course, as you already suspected:




I'm a mechanic.

 

[Subsymbolic]

Actually, I assumed it was common knowledge and you'd just need reminding. My bad. Is it logic you don't believe in, or the assertion that philosophers are constrained by it?

Logic is the only way of moving from true premises to true conclusions. It's a way of preserving a truth value across an argument and allows those who have been trained in it to think, write and evaluate more clearly. I'd rather assume that's enough.

I believe that when humans invent games they invent rules for the games.

Yes there are rules to the game called "logic" some people play.

Logic is a game like football or Old Maid or Go Fish.

It can be played over and over without end.

Is football a constraint on sports?

There are quicker ways of professing one's ignorance. Logic is a formal way of ensuring that true premises lead to true conclusions. It's what allows your computer to run, giving the extrinsic rules that tell the computer what to do next. For a start.