Debate and Discussion

All these EXPERTS
kyupol at 1:29PM, March 9, 2009
(offline)
posts: 3,713
joined: 1-12-2006
I was in the grocery awhile ago and I heard a radio ad of something that went like:

(Note: paraphrased version)
“You're at a dinner party and somebody asked you if Canada is one big happy multicultural family or if its really a dysfunctional family separated by race?

You should end the discussion by asking if you like the coffee or not.

But… for topics like these, tune in to (*certain talk radio… not mentioning it*) as the experts discuss issues like this…”


C'mon. Why do we need “the experts” to do the thinking for us? Don't you have something between those two ears? Shouldn't you USE IT? I mean. Regardless of how you think about the issue.

Do you need someone to think for you or should you think for yourself?
NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:26PM
Aurora Moon at 3:22PM, March 9, 2009
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
It's true that the experts can't always tell us the right sort of information all the time.

I think the purpose of such experts and even statistics is that they're simply there to provide us information on certain subjects.

However I think it's up to us to not just listen to ONE expert or even one study, but many. Because that one expert isn't always right, and having an whole group of experts gives you more insight that way.

Then we're supposed to draw OUR OWN conclusions from their studies and or discoveries.

Of course unfortunately some people don't do that, and simply choose to just go with whatever they said instead of thinking about whenever they actually believed this or not.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
Orin J Master at 7:03PM, March 9, 2009
(online)
posts: 437
joined: 12-16-2007
“experts” in the media is code for “entertainingly loud and obnoxious people that are usually heard arguing about this topic”. it rarely means that they're all that well respected or even knoledgeable in their chosen field, but does mean they can be expected to fill the time alloted ‘explaining’ their frequently borderline retarded ideas.

let's face it, the promise of two morons with little to no grasp on reality bickering about shat that's out of context for reasons noone gives a crap about isn't going to draw the consumer sheep, they can get that in their own home.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:22PM
DMH at 4:24AM, March 10, 2009
(offline)
posts: 213
joined: 11-12-2007
Orin J Master
“experts” in the media is code for “entertainingly loud and obnoxious people that are usually heard arguing about this topic”. it rarely means that they're all that well respected or even knoledgeable in their chosen field, but does mean they can be expected to fill the time alloted ‘explaining’ their frequently borderline retarded ideas.

I remember in year 9 in english we were focussing on the reliability of journalism. We saw this old american program they kept for the topic (It was made about ten years ago if memory serves me). It featured this guy in his sixties dressed up like a scientist and this woman, early twenties and deep cleavage. The two debated and not once did they actually make an arguement on point. The topic was the electric car and they ended up quoting the bible, referring to polls about celebrities, etc.

At the end of it, the class was in stitches over the absolute stupidity of these two people. The teacher then informed us the woman was a model who dropped out of high school and the guy was the producer's brother.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:12PM
Tantz Aerine at 4:55AM, March 10, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,618
joined: 10-11-2006
Unfortunately more often than not these ‘experts’ (a rank that is actually quite undefined and vague considering that an expert may or may not have studied the field he/she claims he/she is expert or not, and the quality of study and further research procured by said ‘expert’ is also questionable if at all present) promote and enforce mainstream pop culture and ideas, and not just simple promotion, but through emotional blackmail from a position of authority as is the radio or the television or any piece of mass media at that.

Emotional blackmail occurs in the sense that this ‘expert’ does not present any of their views in the proper scientific fashion (i.e. as hypotheses/ theories with so and so evidence backing them up, leaving it to the listener to decide upon the validity of the statements) but rather in a ‘or else’ fashion: they preach lifestyle, views, positions, political direction, culture, religious outlooks and positions, reactions to peer pressure, manner of family interactions and everything else down to dietary methods in such a way that it seems that whoever does not follow or agree with what they say is a variety of quite negative things, like unsociable, problematic, deviant, marginalized, fascist, idiotic, and so on and so forth. Who wants to be called any of those things and need to refute it, especially in a social circle that, among other things, is considered pivotal for one's self concept?

Especially in the field of psychology there are many such quacks who do some real, heavy damage regarding what people think should be right, often resulting in disaster and leaving you to wonder where you went wrong. We see tons of such cases in the office everyday, with preposterous preconceptions about what to do to obtain happiness and how they should feel about themselves and others, often because “so and so said we must on TV, and s/he is an expert”.

So, main point I want to make is that it would be great to have scientists disclose scientific findings and inroads and tested methods on every field and aspect, but anyone who arbitrarily calls oneself an ‘expert’ and preaches with more authority than Buddha, without tangible evidence that what s/he says is true and proven in practice is one to be extremely wary of and question every step of the way.

(take it from an expert. :lol: )
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:07PM
DAJB at 8:46AM, March 10, 2009
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 2-23-2007
The trouble with experts (and studies and surveys etc) is that you can always find one to support any argument you care to make.

Smoking isn't injurious to your health. Smoking kills. Cars do not pollute the atmosphere. Cars are the major source of all pollutants in the atmosphere. Market forces are a sensible way of controlling the economy. Regulation is essential for a well run economy. etc etc.

With experts queueing up to spout their opinions in support of even the most spurious arguments, it's hardly surprising we no longer have faith in any of them (or their studies!)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:03PM
bravo1102 at 11:36AM, March 10, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,409
joined: 1-21-2008
The numbers themselves don't lie; the guy interpreting the numbers is the one who lies. ;)

Since everyone knows everything why do we need specialists? Knowledge is specialized and compartmentalized these days because it is so vast. No one can know everything. A Chinese philosopher figured that one out a few millenia ago and answered that the more you think you have the answers you haven't even begun to know what the questions are. Douglas Adams knew that. :)

“I didn't choose them so they can't be experts.” “I don't agree with their conclusions so they are not experts and they don't know what they're saying.” That's the bottom line. After all, all the evidence in the world will not sway someone's belief. Gotta love cognitive dissonance. lol!

And if you disagree, maybe it's time you listened rather than speaking. Remember. you may be the one who's wrong and that expert just could be right.

last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
isukun at 7:48AM, March 12, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
I just find it funny that kyupol is the one starting this thread and telling people to think for themselves when he uses the testimony of “experts” in other threads to try to push his ideas.

More on topic, nobody can formulate an opinion in a vacuum.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM
Orin J Master at 10:41AM, March 12, 2009
(online)
posts: 437
joined: 12-16-2007
isukun
I just find it funny that kyupol is the one starting this thread and telling people to think for themselves when he uses the testimony of “experts” in other threads to try to push his ideas.

More on topic, nobody can formulate an opinion in a vacuum.

well, when he references ‘experts’ they're clearly valid professionals who know what's important about the topic. he's mad at all those loons that just bring up people to reinforce their own opinions!

and while no one can form an opinion in a vacuum, it's generally better to look at evidence over opinion.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:22PM
bravo1102 at 2:09PM, March 12, 2009
(online)
posts: 3,409
joined: 1-21-2008
Do what most people do: form an opinion and then look only at the evidence that supports your opinion and dismiss everything else no matter how overwhelming the conflicting evidence is.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
isukun at 7:39PM, March 12, 2009
(online)
posts: 2,481
joined: 9-28-2006
well, when he references ‘experts’ they're clearly valid professionals who know what's important about the topic

Clearly.

and while no one can form an opinion in a vacuum, it's generally better to look at evidence over opinion.

And where does one get this “evidence” when most, if not all, news sources are simply regurgitated testimonials from so called “experts”? Somewhere down the line you're going to have to formulate an opinion based on the opinions of others. All information is filtered in some way.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:04PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved