|
Veritas

Registered: 04/15/05
Posts: 11,089
|
Opinions
#7995504 - 02/08/08 09:46 AM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Opinion 1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.
2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert.
It seems to me that people often believe that their opinion falls under definition #2, though a rational evaluation of the basis (or lack thereof) of their conclusions would likely reveal it to fall under #1.
When does our personal experience render us an "expert"? Can someone be an expert on topics for which there IS no proof?
|
Icelander
The Minstrel in the Gallery



Registered: 03/15/05
Posts: 95,368
Loc: underbelly
|
Re: Opinions [Re: Veritas]
#7995552 - 02/08/08 09:56 AM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
maybe
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC
|
Boots
Disenchanted


Registered: 07/25/07
Posts: 1,137
Loc: Northwood, Ohio, U.S.A.
Last seen: 15 years, 2 months
|
|
Yes, if they are the only one with said opinion.
|
MushroomTrip
Dr. Teasy Thighs



Registered: 12/02/05
Posts: 14,794
Loc: red panda village
Last seen: 2 years, 10 months
|
Re: Opinions [Re: Veritas]
#7998014 - 02/08/08 08:43 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Can someone be an expert on topics for which there IS no proof?
Weak chances. People are hardly experts in things which are sustained by lots of proves, so the chances of being en expert on something that has no proof would decrease dramatically. And even if there is a possibility, I think it would be just accidental.
--------------------
   All this time I've loved you And never known your face All this time I've missed you And searched this human race Here is true peace Here my heart knows calm Safe in your soul Bathed in your sighs
|
Fugai
Stranger


Registered: 01/27/08
Posts: 80
Loc: Orygun
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: Opinions [Re: Veritas]
#7998525 - 02/08/08 11:17 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
When does our personal experience render us an "expert"? Can someone be an expert on topics for which there IS no proof?
Well first an expert is defined in this context as: noun. a person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field; specialist; authority: a language expert. adjective. possessing special skill or knowledge; trained by practice; skillful or skilled (often fol. by in or at): an expert driver; to be expert at driving a car. (source dictionary.com)
And Second what do you mean by proof? Posteriori or Priori knowledge? Using Deductive or Inductive reasoning? Because if you mean, for instance, posteriori knowledge of a "topic" using deductive reasoning, your speaking about Objective truth as it pertains to a Subject. If you mean priori knowledge of a "topic" using inductive reasoning, your talking about Subjective truth as it pertains to an Object.
I think the distinction is pertinent. Because for instance, your proof could be Objective verifiables, or Subjective verifiables. There are a great many things that are purely subjective yet are not only verifiable (inter determinant) they are considered factually existent. An easy example would be states of consciousness, or for instance a language.
I just happened to watch a lecture by Daniel Kahneman on expert intuition in a talk titled The Illusion of Validity, an impeccable presentation by the professor, which I thought would be directly applicable to this conversation.
First the distinction (only a few ) must be made between the two systems of knowledge acquisition. System 1 is Intuition (sys1) System 2 is Reasoning (sys2) sys1 is Fast, sys2 is Slow sys1 is Automatic/Involuntary, sys2 Controlled/Voluntary sys1 is Slow-learning, sys2 Flexible sys1 is Associative, sys2 Rule-governed sys1 is Effortless, sys2 Effortful sys1 is Something that happens to us, sys2 is Something that we do
Now one other interesting fact is that sys2 monitors sys1. If the monitoring is interrupted - SYS2 IS COMPROMISED, not sys1! I thought that was incredibly fascinating.
Now the reason I recounted all of that is because it has direct impact on the way in which a skill (topic) is learned. Thusly an impact on whether or not one can be considered an expert on the skill (topic).
The subject of discussion was "Expert intuition" and whether or not it can be trusted as well as reasoning. Because one would assume that after having accrued "expert" knowledge of a skill or topic, the process by which ones comes upon intuitions as pertaining to the subject would be "grounded" in reasoning. But in fact, as most evidence now points toward (by now means conclusively mind you) expert intuition is almost always not correct. This conclusion was posited, on this occasion anyway, by an "expert" in psychology. Which was also very interesting. He related two stories as follows: (I will of course truncate) The first was a story about a Fire Chief. The crew of fireman was all on a roof fighting a fire. Suddenly, and it seems out of nowhere, the Chief loudly commands everyone get off the roof immediately. Himself not exactly knowing why at the moment. No sooner had the crew gotten off of the roof, when the roof collapsed. Now having been interviewed by a psychologist afterward they found that actually the fire chief had a signifier on which to base his intuition. They found that moments before he acted, the chief's feet warmed considerably. Thus indicating that there was fire beneath the crew, a very dangerous situation. He acted without actually cognitively noticing the signifier (reasoning), only acting on intuition. That would be an argument FOR, and one of the many examples of, expert intuition. The second story was an account from his own experience in the Israeli military. His job was to evaluate soldiers while they performed complex actions in a group setting on a obstacle course. In short, they were in groups of 8 and were to solve a complex problem as a group. The problem was getting a 20ft pole over a 15ft wall, and all 8 soldiers, without touching the pole to the ground or wall. He never mentioned by the way how they actually did that, I have wondered believe me. Now his job was to watch the group and evaluate each soldiers innate abilities based on observations of interactions within the group. Who lead, who followed. Who contributed, who was singled out etcetera. Based on their "expert" observations they gave recommendations as to their assignment within a regiment. It was assumed that based on observations in this context by "experts" they would be able to infer the translation to the actual battlefield. Who would be the leaders etcetera. And actually it turned out they were not able to do that. And in fact it turned out they had no idea how it would actually translate. In fact a very simple set of algorithms, based on only a few variables, out performed the "experts" every time. But as he remarked, it's the military, so the next day 8 more perform the obstacle course.:D (You should have laughed at that by the way) That would be an argument AGAINST, and one of the many examples of expert intuition loosing out to basic reasoning.
I don't know, I think this post is long enough! I will continue to be involved in this conversation and post other responses I think are relevant. But I will wait for you to read and respond to this one. I will say though it is my opinion of the subject that an expert is a person with X amount of "experience" and "knowledge" (whether Priori or Posteriori) of a specific subject (topic) and in most all cases be trusted, where X is to be judge subjectively . And as far as on topics with no "proof", I will wait for you to define more specifically what you mean by that.
-------------------- Principles of acceptance * People do not progress by being questioned, they progress by questioning themselves. * When ready for the answer, people will come to the question of themselves.
Edited by Fugai (02/08/08 11:23 PM)
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,532
|
Re: Opinions [Re: Fugai]
#7999104 - 02/09/08 03:50 AM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Fugai said:.... First the distinction (only a few ) must be made between the two systems of knowledge acquisition. System 1 is Intuition (sys1) System 2 is Reasoning (sys2) sys1 is Fast, sys2 is Slow sys1 is Automatic/Involuntary, sys2 Controlled/Voluntary sys1 is Slow-learning, sys2 Flexible sys1 is Associative, sys2 Rule-governed sys1 is Effortless, sys2 Effortful sys1 is Something that happens to us, sys2 is Something that we do
Now one other interesting fact is that sys2 monitors sys1. If the monitoring is interrupted - SYS2 IS COMPROMISED, not sys1! I thought that was incredibly fascinating.
I am really glad you brought this up. and I would like to talk to it a bit more, but I think it will take us away from the idea of expertise and the question of whether a person can be expert about something for which there is no proof.
IMO, and you might call me an expert in these things, a person becomes expert by immersion and familiarity. the more effort they put into their immersion, the more expert they become. when other experts recognize the efforts then the expert becomes accredited.
In this way you can have UFO experts invited into a room of UFO skeptics who accept no offered proof. the lack of acceptible proof does not invalidate the expertise of the UFO expert, though the skeptics may choose to erode the confidence that any of the ideas are founded on acceptible sources.
I choose not to use the terms reasonable or logical when I refer to acceptible sources. A more apt term could be arguable or negotiable sources.
still the basis of expertise is immersion and rigor, whether the expert is recognized or not and by which body of experts he is recognized is a separate and more social issue.
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
mushbaby
woodswalker




Registered: 09/30/06
Posts: 2,645
Loc: in my own lil world
|
Re: Opinions [Re: Veritas]
#7999324 - 02/09/08 07:38 AM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Veritas said:
Quote:
Opinion 1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof.
2. A judgment based on special knowledge and given by an expert.
It seems to me that people often believe that their opinion falls under definition #2, though a rational evaluation of the basis (or lack thereof) of their conclusions would likely reveal it to fall under #1.
When does our personal experience render us an "expert"? Can someone be an expert on topics for which there IS no proof?
Since definition 2 says judgement and it's a definition of opinion not a definition of fact why would proof be required?
|
deranger


Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 6,840
Loc: off the wall
|
Re: Opinions [Re: Veritas]
#7999613 - 02/09/08 10:33 AM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Can someone be an expert on topics for which there IS no proof?
well there is no objective proof that astral projection exists. yet one can become an expert at projecting into the astral plane. if you go to the forums at astraldynamics.com you will find a few people who are very experienced with these states of being. they have practised the techniques long and hard enough which induce these dream states that they have become somewhat of an expert compared to those who have no knowledge of these states.
let's look at a couple definitions of expert -
[1. a person who has special skill or knowledge in some particular field; specialist; authority
2. possessing special skill or knowledge; trained by practice; skillful or skilled
synonym: experienced]
objective knowledge isn't the only knowledge there is -
[knowl·edge
1. Familiarity, awareness, or understanding gained through experience or study.]
this tells us that we can have knowledge in the field of dreaming. and the more we become aware of the different levels of dreaming, the more expert we may become.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,532
|
Re: Opinions [Re: deranger]
#7999736 - 02/09/08 11:28 AM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
we are like teabags reaching our potential when immersed damp hot flavourful and refreshing that's how I like my knowledge later we may ex-spurt all good.
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
deranger


Registered: 01/21/08
Posts: 6,840
Loc: off the wall
|
|
tastes good to me!
|
Fugai
Stranger


Registered: 01/27/08
Posts: 80
Loc: Orygun
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
Re: Opinions [Re: deranger]
#8000025 - 02/09/08 12:53 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
I think the issue of "knowledge without proof" is still central. In my opinion Logic should be the basis of determination. If the position is logical it is truth, unless of course whoever is doing the determining is inept in the logical capacity. But on the whole, Logic is Truth. Now this could be interpreted as precluding the need to be expert. But I think that only "experts" are able to make certain conjectures. Sometimes it takes a volume of knowledge accumulated by direct experience in order to infer where "proof" might be lacking or non-existent. I think also that to speak with "authority" on a matter (authority being another synonym of expert) does not necessarily imply that one is an expert.
-------------------- Principles of acceptance * People do not progress by being questioned, they progress by questioning themselves. * When ready for the answer, people will come to the question of themselves.
|
Fugai
Stranger


Registered: 01/27/08
Posts: 80
Loc: Orygun
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
I am really glad you brought this up. and I would like to talk to it a bit more, but I think it will take us away from the idea of expertise and the question of whether a person can be expert about something for which there is no proof.
My point in adding that was to bring to light the basis for "proof" and it's acquisition. But I think you might be right, although it is somewhat applicable, it could be a side issue. I to would like to discuss that more in depth. I will start another post for the discussion of knowledge acquisition.
-------------------- Principles of acceptance * People do not progress by being questioned, they progress by questioning themselves. * When ready for the answer, people will come to the question of themselves.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,532
|
Re: Opinions [Re: Fugai]
#8000985 - 02/09/08 04:41 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
actually now that you cross the stage with the "Logic" tirade, and you do do it well, you can make it one conversation. in my experience, the show is everything. logic is a squirmy issue, but if it is well dressed, then...
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
Fugai
Stranger


Registered: 01/27/08
Posts: 80
Loc: Orygun
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
actually now that you cross the stage with the "Logic" tirade, and you do do it well, you can make it one conversation.
Yeah I thought it all interrelated to begin with. But I never know, my thoughts are so convoluted. I can always imagine what it might look like to everyone else. I just needed to connect the dots a little better. I will always be the first to accept I might be going off on some tangent
Quote:
in my experience, the show is everything. logic is a squirmy issue, but if it is well dressed, then...
So basically what you would prefer Posteriori knowledge, a Subjects knowledge about an Object that can otherwise confirmed by examination as your "proof". I do disagree that logic is un-sound though. I know that using logic alone any matter is discernible. I don't say that with any self importance as if somehow I am able and others are not, implying I have some special capacity. I just know Logic to be absolute, and would be willing to prove it. The issue for me, as far as judging a persons capability to make inferences based on previous knowledge/experience (being the central issue) is the person on whom's logical capacity the determination rests. So I would say ultimately in this matter. The person (expert) can be trusted in-as-much as he is trusted by other individuals in-as-far as it can be experientially verified (using posteriori knowledge as our basis of "proof") or logical deduced. But also in most cases logic can and will predict the actuality of such knowledge, and this is regardless if were using as our basis Posteriori or Priori knowledge. Ah, thats enough for now, it's getting convoluted again. Sometimes I forget what I am actually talking about
-------------------- Principles of acceptance * People do not progress by being questioned, they progress by questioning themselves. * When ready for the answer, people will come to the question of themselves.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,532
|
Re: Opinions [Re: Fugai]
#8002094 - 02/09/08 07:33 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
good show!
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
Fugai
Stranger


Registered: 01/27/08
Posts: 80
Loc: Orygun
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
|
-------------------- Principles of acceptance * People do not progress by being questioned, they progress by questioning themselves. * When ready for the answer, people will come to the question of themselves.
|
Huehuecoyotl
Fading Slowly


Registered: 06/13/04
Posts: 10,685
Loc: On the Border
|
Re: Opinions [Re: Veritas]
#8002132 - 02/09/08 07:40 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Can someone be an expert on topics for which there IS no proof?
Of course they can. Many experts gain their full sense of self worth and importance this way.
-------------------- "A warrior is a hunter. He calculates everything. That's control. Once his calculations are over, he acts. He lets go. That's abandon. A warrior is not a leaf at the mercy of the wind. No one can push him; no one can make him do things against himself or against his better judgment. A warrior is tuned to survive, and he survives in the best of all possible fashions." ― Carlos Castaneda
|
OrgoneConclusion
Blue Fish Group



Registered: 04/01/07
Posts: 45,414
Loc: Under the C
|
|
What tickles me is self-proclaimed Crop Circle experts (cereologists) who declare proven human-made circles as 'genuine' phenomenon.
What I have learned in all my years is that self-deception has no limitations.
--------------------
|
Fugai
Stranger


Registered: 01/27/08
Posts: 80
Loc: Orygun
Last seen: 15 years, 7 months
|
|
Quote:
What I have learned in all my years is that self-deception has no limitations.
That is absolutely true, and a source of constant amusement for me.
Quote:
What tickles me is self-proclaimed Crop Circle experts (cereologists) who declare proven human-made circles as 'genuine' phenomenon.
They are "genuine" phenomenon, and could be shown to express certain relational values by certain facts and figures. Even the "genuinely" human-made ones.:D (just in case no-one laughed, I was of course semantically joking)
-------------------- Principles of acceptance * People do not progress by being questioned, they progress by questioning themselves. * When ready for the answer, people will come to the question of themselves.
|
redgreenvines
irregular verb


Registered: 04/08/04
Posts: 37,532
|
Re: Opinions [Re: Fugai]
#8002417 - 02/09/08 08:44 PM (15 years, 11 months ago) |
|
|
genuinely
--------------------
_ 🧠_
|
|