"the assumption that credentials in one area grant it another"
This is a really important point and is a view that academics often use to promote their views in the media. Kathleen Stock, for example, has no academic background in gender, yet was held up as a national expert in the field because she had credentials as a philosopher (specialism - aesthetics). Jordan Peterson similarly preaches from authority about topics of which his understanding is skin deep. It's more of a problem at the crankier end of discourse, where there's space for grifters and activists to misuse their credentials because real experts avoid getting into charged one-sided positions about nuanced topics.
Fortunately it can act as a filter if you know what you're looking for. Stock, Peterson and their ilk have no academic credibility in serious circles any more, they've pissed it up the wall for clicks.
From that page... "Following Stock's resignation, she announced she would be joining the University of Austin"
aka the University of You Can't Say Anything These Days.
Stock has no academic position, and publishes opinion pieces on her hobby. If you think she's doing serious work, that's an expression of the very problem Ian pointed out.
My favourite example of this from my field is when all sorts of random astronomers got booked on live TV to cover the launch of Tim Peake, the British astronaut, to the International Space Station. Astronomy is not rocket science, and while many were happy to talk about space travel in general, they were caught out when there was an unexpected delay on arrival. I still have nightmares about the look on the face of one of the world’s experts on the Sun being asked, I think on Sky, what might have gone wrong and whether there was any danger, as he realised he didn’t have a clue. (We later found out it was just time for the crew to recover from space sickness so they could smile when the hatch was opened, but still)
When I say that, and it’s pretty often, I get an earful, which encourages me to keep on saying it. Perhaps I should follow it up with- but what do you think?
Since Brexit the government(s) have very far from merely being ignorant about certain subjects whilst pretending they understand all sound more like their parroting each other to get their stories straight. I often now find myself watching the news and feel angry and frustrated at the outrageous lies I am hearing which is very different from pre-Brexit. The truth has apparently become irrelevant to Tory MPs and saying I don’t know seems unthinkable to them. I do think it’s refreshing that a shadow mp says doesn’t know on one level but getting rid of Voter ID should be a no brainer so it’s depressing as well. I am more determined to vote than I have ever been today.
"the assumption that credentials in one area grant it another"
This is a really important point and is a view that academics often use to promote their views in the media. Kathleen Stock, for example, has no academic background in gender, yet was held up as a national expert in the field because she had credentials as a philosopher (specialism - aesthetics). Jordan Peterson similarly preaches from authority about topics of which his understanding is skin deep. It's more of a problem at the crankier end of discourse, where there's space for grifters and activists to misuse their credentials because real experts avoid getting into charged one-sided positions about nuanced topics.
Fortunately it can act as a filter if you know what you're looking for. Stock, Peterson and their ilk have no academic credibility in serious circles any more, they've pissed it up the wall for clicks.
Will have to disagree about Dr Stock.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Stock
From that page... "Following Stock's resignation, she announced she would be joining the University of Austin"
aka the University of You Can't Say Anything These Days.
Stock has no academic position, and publishes opinion pieces on her hobby. If you think she's doing serious work, that's an expression of the very problem Ian pointed out.
My favourite example of this from my field is when all sorts of random astronomers got booked on live TV to cover the launch of Tim Peake, the British astronaut, to the International Space Station. Astronomy is not rocket science, and while many were happy to talk about space travel in general, they were caught out when there was an unexpected delay on arrival. I still have nightmares about the look on the face of one of the world’s experts on the Sun being asked, I think on Sky, what might have gone wrong and whether there was any danger, as he realised he didn’t have a clue. (We later found out it was just time for the crew to recover from space sickness so they could smile when the hatch was opened, but still)
Lots of politicians say I don't know. Just look at the COVID enquiries. None of them knew what happened to their WhatsApp messages 😕
When I say that, and it’s pretty often, I get an earful, which encourages me to keep on saying it. Perhaps I should follow it up with- but what do you think?
It’s certainty that gets you every time.
Not linking to your own TV appearance, eh
Since Brexit the government(s) have very far from merely being ignorant about certain subjects whilst pretending they understand all sound more like their parroting each other to get their stories straight. I often now find myself watching the news and feel angry and frustrated at the outrageous lies I am hearing which is very different from pre-Brexit. The truth has apparently become irrelevant to Tory MPs and saying I don’t know seems unthinkable to them. I do think it’s refreshing that a shadow mp says doesn’t know on one level but getting rid of Voter ID should be a no brainer so it’s depressing as well. I am more determined to vote than I have ever been today.
AI Narration:
https://askwhocastsai.substack.com/p/the-three-most-beautiful-words-in