On expertise and credentials

[goldisheavy]

In my own professional work I have touched on a variety of different fields. I've done my work in mathematical linguistics, for example, without any professional credentials in mathematics; in this subject I am completely self-taught, and not very well taught. But I've often been invited by universities to speak on mathematical linguistics at mathematics seminars and colloquia. No one has ever asked me whether I have the appropriate credentials to speak on these subjects; the mathematicians couldn't care less. What they want to know is what I have to say. No one has ever objected to my right to speak, asking whether I have a doctor's degree in mathematics, or whether I have taken advanced courses in the subject. That would never have entered their minds. They want to know whether I am right or wrong, whether the subject is interesting or not, whether better approaches are possible - the discussion dealt with the subject, not with my right to discuss it.

 

But on the other hand, in discussion or debate concerning social issues or American foreign policy, Vietnam or the Middle East, for example, the issue is constantly raised, often with considerable venom. I've repeatedly been challenged on the grounds of credentials, or asked, what special training do you have that entitles you to speak of these matters. The assumption is that people like me, who are outsiders from a professional standpoint, are not entitled to speak on such things.

 

Compare mathematics and the political sciences -- it's quite striking. In mathematics, in physics, people are concerned with what you say, not with your certification. But in order to speak about social reality, you must have the proper credentials, particularly if you depart from the accepted framework of thinking. Generally speaking, it seems fair to say that the richer the intellectual substance of a field, the less there is a concern for credentials, and the greater is concern for content.

 

---Noam Chomsky, pp. 6-7: Language and Responsibility. Based on conversations with Mitsou Ronat. Translated by John Viertel. New York: Pantheon, 1979. (French original: Dialogues avec Mitsou Ront. Paris: Flammarion, 1977)

 

Taken from http://www.autodidactproject.org/quote/chomsky1.html

 

I thought this was very insightful and very relevant to people here as well.

[Taiji Bum]

Nice quote, thanks for that.

[Smile]

Nice quote...

 

6MHEuudJ-o0

[doc benway]

I love Chomsky's work.

 

I think that mathematicians and physicists aren't too concerned with credentials simply because they can look at one's proposals and theories, put them to the test and know ultimately whether they hold water or not through relatively straightforward and 'doable' calculations and debate. Similarly, if someone shows up in my taijiquan class and talks a lot about taiji theory and Daoist theory and martial applications, I can easily test their theories in a friend pushing hands match. I don't care if they have a philosophy degree or not and I don't care if they have a black sash or black belt or whatever. It's put up or shut up.

 

On the other hand, when we begin to talk about social issues and philosophy, we are in a very different situation. How can we test philosophical, political, and social assertions and ideas? Generally only through debate. To prove a point about social and political science requires large scale observations and experiments that are generally outside the scope of a discussion forum. Otherwise, we are just trading gratuitous assertions. Here then, what we do, is try and limit the discussion to those with appropriate "credentials" assuming that these credentials mean that the presenter must be making valid points. Bullshit!

 

I love Chomsky's work.

[lino]

But on the other hand, in discussion or debate concerning social issues or American foreign policy, Vietnam or the Middle East, for example, the issue is constantly raised, often with considerable venom. I've repeatedly been challenged on the grounds of credentials, or asked, what special training do you have that entitles you to speak of these matters.

 

Hmmmmmm...

 

Maybe he should discretely point out that what academia has produced in that field has yet to work. Just the same people parroting the same garbage while getting paid under the table or people with "credentials" and "special training" that deliver results that are unsatisfactory.

[Encephalon]

But on the other hand, in discussion or debate concerning social issues or American foreign policy, Vietnam or the Middle East, for example, the issue is constantly raised, often with considerable venom. I've repeatedly been challenged on the grounds of credentials, or asked, what special training do you have that entitles you to speak of these matters.

 

Hmmmmmm...

 

Maybe he should discretely point out that what academia has produced in that field has yet to work. Just the same people parroting the same garbage while getting paid under the table or people with "credentials" and "special training" that deliver results that are unsatisfactory.

 

My favorite Chomsky term is "cognitive hygiene." Could you explicate your comments, please? What exactly are you saying about Chomsky or academia?

[goldisheavy]

I love Chomsky's work.

 

I think that mathematicians and physicists aren't too concerned with credentials simply because they can look at one's proposals and theories, put them to the test and know ultimately whether they hold water or not through relatively straightforward and 'doable' calculations and debate.

 

And I will say, if you cannot test something, why are you accepting it at all? Why would something untestable have currency in conversation at all, except for the artistic value?

 

Furthermore, how does building a social hierarchy that dispenses signs of authorization (like certificates, degrees, lineage seals of approval, etc.) improve the value of untestable information? If you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig. If you polish a turd it still doesn't shine.

 

Similarly, if someone shows up in my taijiquan class and talks a lot about taiji theory and Daoist theory and martial applications, I can easily test their theories in a friend pushing hands match.

 

This is excellent. So what makes you and your art valuable is that it can be tested. It's not your credentials that make it valuable.

 

On the other hand, when we begin to talk about social issues and philosophy, we are in a very different situation. How can we test philosophical, political, and social assertions and ideas?

 

We can test those too. We test them by performing critical analysis. We test them by performing thought experiments. And we test them by sincerely embodying the concepts we wish to test in our very lives to see if they make a difference.

 

It's definitely possible to test any worthwhile spiritual, philosophical, or social idea. It might be tricky in some cases, but not impossible. And I think it's worth the effort too.

Edited October 17, 2009 by goldisheavy

[voidisyinyang]

Edited October 18, 2009 by drewhempel

[JustARandomPanda]

Well...

 

I have the following book but I've yet to read more than just the introduction. From what little I read though I'm delighted I got it. This thread has made me think it'd probably be a good idea to take it down off my shelf and finish it.

 

 

Appeal to Expert Opinion: Arguments from Authority

[Encephalon]

[Encephalon]

I am almost always in agreement with Chomsky's assessments on social and political issues. The video link from Smile is no exception. Americans are truly suffering a dramatic reduction in quality of life indicators, but as Chomsky says, the fringe elements that are given a voice by mainstream media offer egregious explanations; the country is controlled by rich liberals, gays, unions, and immigrants, all colluding to destroy American values. Scapegoating on crack. The Nazis did the exact same thing; blamed everything on the Lefties.

[goldisheavy]

This is funny. Somehow this thread turned into "Isn't Chomsky just the best?" adoration. Yes, I like Chomsky too, but that's not why I posted the quote. I think Chomsky was trying to make an interesting point in that quote... Maybe I should have attributed the quote to "anonymous" so as to not divert attention from the contents of the quote to the character of the author. This is how the copyright law gets in the way of good discussion sometimes.

[doc benway]

This is funny. Somehow this thread turned into "Isn't Chomsky just the best?" adoration. Yes, I like Chomsky too, but that's not why I posted the quote. I think Chomsky was trying to make an interesting point in that quote... Maybe I should have attributed the quote to "anonymous" so as to not divert attention from the contents of the quote to the character of the author. This is how the copyright law gets in the way of good discussion sometimes.

Ironic - you post a quote criticizing dependence on credentials and the credentials of the author of the quote get in the way!

It was worth quoting nonetheless and timely - I almost linked to it in response to SereneBlue's question of credentials in the "walls" thread.

[Encephalon]

This is funny. Somehow this thread turned into "Isn't Chomsky just the best?" adoration. Yes, I like Chomsky too, but that's not why I posted the quote. I think Chomsky was trying to make an interesting point in that quote... Maybe I should have attributed the quote to "anonymous" so as to not divert attention from the contents of the quote to the character of the author. This is how the copyright law gets in the way of good discussion sometimes.

 

Alas, I have seen my own posts hijacked and taken in directions I never thought possible. I'll grant you it is disappointing when you're trying to construct a specific dialogue. I am not cued in to the dynamic you were attempting to explore. Is TTB a forum for divisiveness regarding who is credentialed to do and say what? Pardon me for missing an essential point.

[goldisheavy]

Alas, I have seen my own posts hijacked and taken in directions I never thought possible. I'll grant you it is disappointing when you're trying to construct a specific dialogue. I am not cued in to the dynamic you were attempting to explore. Is TTB a forum for divisiveness regarding who is credentialed to do and say what? Pardon me for missing an essential point.

 

It's not a big deal. I just thought it was funny. I guess the original point got exhausted and it was the right time for the thread to go into a new direction.

[Trunk]

My favorite Chomsky term is "cognitive hygiene."

That's a keeper!