What criteria should determine an expert?

[Philosophy Explorer]

It's a tough question. Courtrooms call on them. Governments rely upon them. And many other areas.

I don't think I'll get much argument that an expert should have a PhD. But the actual answer would depend upon the field. How many years of experience should he have? Should he have published works? How should he be checked?

On that last question, Andrew Wiles submitted a paper to a peer-review committee of three saying that Fermat's Last Theorem was proven (it turned out there was a part that was in error which was corrected by Andrew a year later so he gets the credit for the proof).

Any further thoughts on this?

PhilX

[Ansiktsburk]

Governments don't necessarily requires PhD, even in areas where PhD is a feather in the hat. To have deep knowledge and proven professional skill is sometimes enough.
What is the reason for having a PhD as an absolute requirement? To convince other PhD's that you're worth listening to?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Governments don't necessarily requires PhD, even in areas where PhD is a feather in the hat. To have deep knowledge and proven professional skill is sometimes enough.

Can you be more specific?

PhilX

[Ansiktsburk]

Governments don't necessarily requires PhD, even in areas where PhD is a feather in the hat. To have deep knowledge and proven professional skill is sometimes enough.

Can you be more specific?

PhilX

More specific about what?

[Philosophy Explorer]

Governments don't necessarily requires PhD, even in areas where PhD is a feather in the hat. To have deep knowledge and proven professional skill is sometimes enough.

Can you be more specific?

PhilX

More specific about what?

About deep knowledge and proven professional skill. For example, proven to whom? Would a PhD be enough? How about art experts? I've read that phony art has fooled art experts.

PhilX

[HexHammer]

Having superior skills, knowledge, can predict an outcome, think holistically, be objective and see things for what they are.

[Risto]

The official post said that courtrooms call on experts and governments rely upon them. Where do you draw the line that experts are required to do the work vs people merely qualified? Everyone is a beginner at some point, do they have to sit sidelines and not get a chance? Some criteria have been proposed for being considered an expert, for example by the philosopher Alvin Goldman, but I think it's important to ask some other questions before.

[Ansiktsburk]

:

About deep knowledge and proven professional skill. For example, proven to whom? Would a PhD be enough? How about art experts? I've read that phony art has fooled art experts.

PhilX

Well, to be honest, I don't exactly know how this is done. I will ask a close relative of mine who was the one of the major expert behind a law(and here my english is too poor) "that regulates how trades should be made" - without any academical degree at all, just a good name working with commerce. (Clever guy from a poor family, started off working with customs). I learned from him that he is not the only one without an academical degree in governmental processes that requires experts.

Of course, in some fields, like medicine, a doctors degree is probably a must. And in the end, there might be a PhD that can give a go for a non-PhD to count as a reliable souce. But I don't know. What I know is that a PhD is not a must.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Risto asked:

"Where do you draw the line that experts are required to do the work vs people merely qualified?" That's my topic question."

"Everyone is a beginner at some point, do they have to sit sidelines and not get a chance?" Not get a chance at what? In the guilds, people underwent training under a master for some occupation. In modern times, people who undergo training to become a doctor have to meet strict requirements before being allowed to practice. But with an expert, even higher standards must be met. When a courtroom calls upon an expert, often it's someone from the FBI and nowadays convictions are being overturned in part due to mismatch of fingerprint evidence (the famous matching "10 points").

So again I ask the question "What criteria should determine an expert?"

PhilX

[Risto]

Not get a chance at what? In the guilds, people underwent training under a master for some occupation. In modern times, people who undergo training to become a doctor have to meet strict requirements before being allowed to practice. But with an expert, even higher standards must be met. When a courtroom calls upon an expert, often it's someone from the FBI and nowadays convictions are being overturned in part due to mismatch of fingerprint evidence (the famous matching "10 points").

Get a chance at work. Before someone can achieve expert status at work X that someone has to practice work X for a long time (perhaps 10,000 hours). Simulation is one thing but I doubt it is enough. So before someone can become an expert, a beginner has to start working pretty much the same work. A medical doctor goes through education and internship, but at one point one has to start working. At that point, one is a complete beginner. Why do you need an expert to do work?

[Ansiktsburk]

Risto asked:

"Where do you draw the line that experts are required to do the work vs people merely qualified?" That's my topic question."

"Everyone is a beginner at some point, do they have to sit sidelines and not get a chance?" Not get a chance at what? In the guilds, people underwent training under a master for some occupation. In modern times, people who undergo training to become a doctor have to meet strict requirements before being allowed to practice. But with an expert, even higher standards must be met. When a courtroom calls upon an expert, often it's someone from the FBI and nowadays convictions are being overturned in part due to mismatch of fingerprint evidence (the famous matching "10 points").

So again I ask the question "What criteria should determine an expert?"

PhilX

I guess, from what has been said here, an establishment that need an expert will go to the community of that field of expertise who will come up with someone. The criteria is that the community of that field gives her OK.

[marjoram_blues]

Having superior skills, knowledge, can predict an outcome, think holistically, be objective and see things for what they are.

Hex, I think this is a good response. I'm no expert on what should determine an expert. I agree that being able to have a holistic view of a problem is valuable. However, given that an 'expert' usually has training/experience in a specific field, perhaps it is about being an important part of a whole?

I guess an 'expert' wouldn't need to look up wiki but would have deep knowledge of a subject.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expert
An expert ( pronunciation (US) (help·info)) is someone widely recognized as a reliable source of technique or skill whose faculty for judging or deciding rightly, justly, or wisely is accorded authority and status by peers or the public in a specific well-distinguished domain. An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability based on research, experience, or occupation and in a particular area of study. Experts are called in for advice on their respective subject, but they do not always agree on the particulars of a field of study. An expert can be believed, by virtue of credential, training, education, profession, publication or experience, to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person, sufficient that others may officially (and legally) rely upon the individual's opinion. Historically, an expert was referred to as a sage (Sophos). The individual was usually a profound thinker distinguished for wisdom and sound judgment.
Experts have a prolonged or intense experience through practice and education in a particular field. In specific fields, the definition of expert is well established by consensus and therefore it is not always necessary for individuals to have a professional or academic qualification for them to be accepted as an expert. In this respect, a shepherd with 50 years of experience tending flocks would be widely recognized as having complete expertise in the use and training of sheep dogs and the care of sheep. Another example from computer science is that an expert system may be taught by a human and thereafter considered an expert, often outperforming human beings at particular tasks. In law, an expert witness must be recognized by argument and authority.
Research in this area attempts to understand the relation between expert knowledge and exceptional performance in terms of cognitive structures and processes. The fundamental aim of this research is to describe what it is that experts know and how they use their knowledge to achieve performance that most people assume requires extreme or extraordinary ability. Studies have investigated the factors that enable experts to be fast and accurate.[1]

[HexHammer]

Hex, I think this is a good response. I'm no expert on what should determine an expert. I agree that being able to have a holistic view of a problem is valuable. However, given that an 'expert' usually has training/experience in a specific field, perhaps it is about being an important part of a whole?

I guess an 'expert' wouldn't need to look up wiki but would have deep knowledge of a subject.

The wiki page does not account for prodigy savants, so there's much more to the 'tale', than seems.

[marjoram_blues]

Hex, I think this is a good response. I'm no expert on what should determine an expert. I agree that being able to have a holistic view of a problem is valuable. However, given that an 'expert' usually has training/experience in a specific field, perhaps it is about being an important part of a whole?

I guess an 'expert' wouldn't need to look up wiki but would have deep knowledge of a subject.

The wiki page does not account for prodigy savants, so there's much more to the 'tale', than seems.

Hex, I am not clear on what a 'prodigy savant' is, could you explain why being one would determine whether or not it is linked to being an 'expert'.
My little time for research, resulted in this: (No doubt it is only part of a more complex subject)

http://www.differencebetween.com/differ ... vs-savant/

A prodigy has exceptional talent in a particular field. A prodigy does not necessarily translate into a genius later on in his life, and when this does happen, the person is described as precocious talent that did not deliver as an adult.
A savant gives the impression of being exceptionally talented in one field. Though may not have the intelligence to put perceived skill into good effect or use.
A prodigious savant is extremely rare with only about a 100 cases reported so far in the last century or so. Such a savant person has an extraordinary skill or ability without any ostensible cognitive disability.

The criteria seems to lie in whether or not the extraordinary skill/ability can be put to 'good effect or use'.

[HexHammer]

Hex, I am not clear on what a 'prodigy savant' is, could you explain why being one would determine whether or not it is linked to being an 'expert'.
My little time for research, resulted in this: (No doubt it is only part of a more complex subject)

http://www.differencebetween.com/differ ... vs-savant/

A prodigy has exceptional talent in a particular field. A prodigy does not necessarily translate into a genius later on in his life, and when this does happen, the person is described as precocious talent that did not deliver as an adult.
A savant gives the impression of being exceptionally talented in one field. Though may not have the intelligence to put perceived skill into good effect or use.
A prodigious savant is extremely rare with only about a 100 cases reported so far in the last century or so. Such a savant person has an extraordinary skill or ability without any ostensible cognitive disability.

The criteria seems to lie in whether or not the extraordinary skill/ability can be put to 'good effect or use'.

Imo Mozart was an "expert" in his field, yet a child prodigy, but without much experience he has done as a child what many would take centuries to achieve. Therefore the definition of an "expert" is outdated and doesn't account for modern understanding of the term.