on expertise

[Advocate]

Expertise matters but what matters more is how expertise is recognized. Ordinary folk are not capable of recognizing expertise, nor are people at many levels of involvement, depending on field. In philosophy, for example, everyone thinks they can recognise expertise in relation to themselves, but many acknowledged experts fail to acknowledge inconsistencies in their own ideas or would include criteria that are not properly related to expertise at all, such as popularity and acknowledgement.

[Age]

Expertise matters but what matters more is how expertise is recognized. Ordinary folk are not capable of recognizing expertise, nor are people at many levels of involvement, depending on field.

Define what you actually mean by 'ordinary folk', and, 'recognizing expertise'?

Also, the exception is some, so called, "ordinary folk" can very easily 'recognize True expertise' and/or even recognize when other people wrongly and/or falsely claim "expertise".

In philosophy, for example, everyone thinks they can recognise expertise in relation to themselves, but many acknowledged experts fail to acknowledge inconsistencies in their own ideas or would include criteria that are not properly related to expertise at all, such as popularity and acknowledgement.

Sometimes you say, "in philosophy", and sometimes you say, "doing philosophy".

So that you could been seen as someone who has ANY 'expertise' at all, then what is the difference between what you sometimes say and do not say?

What does, 'in philosophy' mean, to you, and, what does 'doing philosophy' mean, to you?

From my perspective you appear to be wrongly and falsely claiming some sort of 'expertise' here.