The Death of Expertise

[untermensche]

What is a philosophy department?

It is every course taught.

You can't even make your petty arguments count.

And yet, oddly, lists like this are necessary.

http://www.spep.org/resources/graduate-programs/

Even if the definition of a department was ‘every course taught’ then the fact remains that some universities don’t teach continental philosophy or teach it through the English department. Others, mainly in Continental Europe (that’s a clue) don’t teach analytic philosophy at all.

Holy fuck!!!

Now you are going to argue Nietzsche is not an incredibly important philosopher?

That was almost completely ignored in his day.

The sheep of the day, which includes me and includes the greatest part of humanity, cannot see ideas if they are too advanced. It takes time for humanity to catch up to them.

I may be a sheep but I at least understand this.

 

[Subsymbolic]

What is a philosophy department?

It is every course taught.

You can't even make your petty arguments count.

And yet, oddly, lists like this are necessary.

http://www.spep.org/resources/graduate-programs/

Even if the definition of a department was ‘every course taught’ then the fact remains that some universities don’t teach continental philosophy or teach it through the English department. Others, mainly in Continental Europe (that’s a clue) don’t teach analytic philosophy at all.

Now you are going to argue Nietzsche is not an incredibly important philosopher?

Am I, or is that just the sort of leading question that I'll just point out before asking precisely why you think you have any grounds for asking it. Are you aware of the difference between analytic and continental philosophy?

That was almost completely ignored in his day.

Well, certainly after having become a stroppy public atheist in a subject that was pursued by the most devout in a country that didn't like atheists and then suffered an ongoing and increasingly debilitating degenerative illness. Yes he was. Before that, he was rather popular.

The sheep of the day, which includes me and includes the greatest part of humanity, cannot see ideas if they are too advanced. It takes time for humanity to catch up to them.

I confess I really don't like this comparing people to sheep. It's demeaning to everyone. Perhaps 'non specialists' is more helpful.

I may be a sheep but I at least understand this.

Don't be so bashful, you've already told us you are better qualified than anyone here. I'm positively excited to hear about the advanced qualifications that you hold...

 

[untermensche]

I confess I really don't like this comparing people to sheep. It's demeaning to everyone. Perhaps 'non specialists' is more helpful.

A specialist who can't prove any specialty, can't do something another cannot, is not a specialist in anything.

What can a so-called philosopher do that any ordinary person cannot?

Prove it.

Saying they know their own doesn't pass the laugh test.

Every cult member knows the other members of the cult.

Nietzsche is the perfect example of a philosopher not being recognized by the sheep of his day.

The cult did not recognize him.

 

[beero1000]

Yes, but I believe that the academic fields hadn't quite solidified into their modern forms by that point. At the time, I think the main classical 'philosophical' fields were philosophy, philology, and theology, with a great deal of interplay between them. While some specialized, many (most?) were still interested or active in multiple fields, including Nietzsche.



He didn't get that second PhD but I don't think it's too much of a stretch to call him reasonably qualified in philosophy. The fact that not many were interested in his work or agreed with it doesn't mean they would have thought he was unqualified to write philosophy. And despite untermensche's repeatedly asserted opinions, his book sales numbers don't say that much about contemporary opinions of his qualifications.

I don’t think there’s much in the way of grounds to call him qualified at all. He earned his batchelor status, but both his MA equivalent and Doctorate were honorary, the doctorate from a university he hadn’t studied at. What he clearly was was a gifted autodidact. Apart from that, I broadly agree with you.

Fair enough, though I would point out that that doesn't quite mean they viewed him as unqualified as, like the academic fields of that era, variations from the accepted degree sequence were given a little more leeway at the time. IIRC, Hegel didn't get a PhD, his magister degree was on theology, and his habilitation was on planetary orbits, but he was still considered a qualified philosopher.

 

[fromderinside]

Where is this going. Are you saying there has been no death of expertise since there was never any standard for expertise in philosophy? I'm pretty sure shared interest opinion of one's insight is pretty much in tact as a criterion for expertise in any case at most any time in any given situation. If others who label themselves as philosophers and are considered as such by others of similar interests then they are operationally considered experts and what they consider as expertise is so.

 

[untermensche]

My latest claim is that so-called experts can prove their expertise.

To anyone.

Not just to another member of a cult.

 

[fromderinside]

Expertise is not universal in any way as far as I can find. You and I claim to have expertise. We each have references and examples. I don't expect you to respect my expertise, i use it as a tool from which I can develop certain threads of structure during discussion. You seem to use what you claim to have as more of a weapon. Will anyone ever agree with either of those views. Of course not.

 

[untermensche]

My expertise is looking at drug profiles and making decisions about medications. I could demonstrate this to anyone.

I also worked as a physical therapist for years and could demonstrate my expertise in that area.

 

[fromderinside]

We should have something in common but we don't. Do you evaluate the validity of either the drug files or differences from current existing therapy and current recommended therapy?

So you use doctor assigned codes to treat assigned patients. Do you examine research to determine the validity of either the codes or the therapy and provide recommendations to any medical system outside you existing clients?

If you rpesond no to my feedback questions you aren't an expert. Rather you are a technician.

A technician executes existing policy an expert sets it.

 

[untermensche]

I do not determine if current medications are standard treatment within the many guidelines. I only determine if the drug is a treatment for a patient's diagnoses. Doctors are allowed to stray from guidelines and they are responsible for any problems that may arise.

 

[bilby]

I do not determine if current medications are standard treatment within the many guidelines. I only determine if the drug is a treatment for a patient's diagnoses. Doctors are allowed to stray from guidelines and they are responsible for any problems that may arise.

So you are simply a functionary, complying with the instructions issued by the actual experts.

That's good to know.

 

[untermensche]

I do not determine if current medications are standard treatment within the many guidelines. I only determine if the drug is a treatment for a patient's diagnoses. Doctors are allowed to stray from guidelines and they are responsible for any problems that may arise.

So you are simply a functionary, complying with the instructions issued by the actual experts.

That's good to know.

I have a pharmacy license.

It is a ticket to easy living.

What do you have? What the fuck have you ever done?

 

[fromderinside]

I have a pharmacy license.

It is a ticket to easy living.

The goal of providing technical licences is to give as many as possible a ticket to easy street. Consider yourself lucky. You won't ever have your work reviewed by other experts and judged. Be thankful.

OBTW bilby is a F'en expert. He actually evaluates and publishes on the creative professional work of others.

 

[bilby]

I do not determine if current medications are standard treatment within the many guidelines. I only determine if the drug is a treatment for a patient's diagnoses. Doctors are allowed to stray from guidelines and they are responsible for any problems that may arise.

So you are simply a functionary, complying with the instructions issued by the actual experts.

That's good to know.

I have a pharmacy license.

It is a ticket to easy living.

That's very nice for you.

It's not a basis for any claim of expertise, but as long as it makes you a happy functionary, there's nothing wrong with that.

What do you have? What the fuck have you ever done?

I have done a great deal. Right now, I am paid very well for my detailed knowledge of how a particular set of software applications work. I have no commute, my boss is a thousand km away, and I can contribute to society while enjoying the company of my dogs.

Life is good.

 

[untermensche]

I have a pharmacy license.

It is a ticket to easy living.

The goal of providing technical licences is to give as many as possible a ticket to easy street. Consider yourself lucky. You won't ever have your work reviewed by other experts and judged. Be thankful.

OBTW bilby is a F'en expert. He actually evaluates and publishes on the creative professional work of others.

If he had any expertise he would not need somebody sticking up for him.

He makes about the worst arguments I have ever seen. Incredibly bad.

His expertise is certainly not rational thought.

 

[untermensche]

I have a pharmacy license.

It is a ticket to easy living.

That's very nice for you.

It's not a basis for any claim of expertise, but as long as it makes you a happy functionary, there's nothing wrong with that.

What do you have? What the fuck have you ever done?

I have done a great deal. Right now, I am paid very well for my detailed knowledge of how a particular set of software applications work. I have no commute, my boss is a thousand km away, and I can contribute to society while enjoying the company of my dogs.

Life is good.

So you're a dime a dozen software "specialist"?

I suppose when the subject of software comes up you will finally have something interesting to say.

 

[fromderinside]

So you're a dime a dozen software "specialist"?

I suppose when the subject of software comes up you will finally have something interesting to say.

Now there you go again. You didn't criticize one's description of work. you denigrating a class of objective software professionals work with the adhom "dime a dozen" perjorative because it makes you feel good. You provided no objective input like noting the fact that he does just as I prescribe, evaluates the work of - let's call them professional technicians for comparisons's sake - providing useful and profitable critical review and other topic constructive input. That qualifies him as an expert.

He just let you have a little rub of cheek when he mentioned his home and dog situation.

If you can't raise your game you can expect to be shown up for not doing so.

As I understand it this is a discussion board not an adversarial winner-loser board.

Many of us expect to gain information and come to resolution here. Not you apparently.

 

[beero1000]

It makes me wonder, how could someone prove their expertise in a given language to someone who doesn't speak it?

 

[fromderinside]

It makes me wonder, how could someone prove their expertise in a given language to someone who doesn't speak it?

Yeas! All the experts are isolate=s who either don't speak multiple languages or are froceably screened from access to translators and translations of other expert's works. I guess they are all wrapped in tissue paper so they won't break.

Cummon beer1000 pr is that something else in another language.

 

[Subsymbolic]

It makes me wonder, how could someone prove their expertise in a given language to someone who doesn't speak it?

As Wittgenstein put it:

It is what human beings say that is false and true; and they agree in the language they use. That is not agreement in opinions but in form of life.

P.I.241

I think his point is that there has to be a great deal of agreement about everything else before the possibility of proof or disagreement about anything even becomes possible.

So no. (according to yet another mad German)