ATS, Where Everybody is an Expert

I don’t know about the rest of you but I have noticed that on ATS quite often people cite their expertise as a reason we should believe them or buy into their theory or point of view. I have done this is in the past and yes to some extent it did work, sort of. The thing is, this really shouldn’t be the reason anybody win’s an argument because it is impossible for anybody to establish if it is the truth.

It’s not the people who state they work in a particular sector of industry and propose their own professional insight into something that I have a problem with, it’s the people who make the really bold claims. I am talking about people who say things like “I have studied international security all my life” now I would say that would qualify a person as an expert in that subject. I have came across it quite a few times, the first question I ask is always the same “what level have you studied this at” the response is quite telling usually “oh I haven’t studied it academically but I have read about in books”, in other words you’re not the expert I thought you were rather you are a enthusiast like me. I think to claim to be a expert in anything you have to hold a minimum of a degree in that subject and further to this have experience working in that sector. Now yes this is flexible depending on the subject but I think that’s a good bench mark.

Here’s one that doses annoy me, the claim that “I have travelled the world”, yeah good for you but why that mean does I should pay any attention to everything else you have just said about UFO’s. Worse than that is this question “what age are you”, really why does that matter, the quality of my thread, sources and logic is what matters not how old you are. Your age and life experience does not make you an expert, it just makes you older and better travelled.

We have this other generic claim that gets pushed around allot on ATS that I hate, it’s “The average ATSter is above average intelligence”, no sorry, only MENSA can really make that claim. We might have a higher addiction to the news than the average person but as a group we are not more or less intelligent than the rest of the public for it is impossible to define how high our collective intelligence. Yes there are some people on ATS who are clearly incredibly intelligent and there are others who are clearly not running with a full set of chromosomes. Before you ask, I do not regard myself as being above average intelligence.

The one claim of expertise that annoys me above all else is the “I am ex-military/special forces/CIA” claim. Now those who claim to be ex-military say the ones who say “when i was in the royal Artillery”, I find easy enough to believe but I know there are bound to be a few who make these claims who are probably liars. My favourite expert claim is the (I am ex-*Insert random Special Forces or intelligence unit here*” claim. You know the macho guys who run around telling us how they are all ex SAS and Mossad. First of all if you were, I find it hard to believe that you would go around telling people about it on the internet especially on a site like ATS. Further to this i find it even harder you would repeat and even hint at operations you have taken part in or disclose other “secret” information. In my opinion most of these guys are total liars, which is a shame really because it’s a black mark on the name of those famous regiments.

I would love to find out what qualifies a person as a “subject matter expert”?

In my relatively short time on ATS I think I have came across 3 or 4 people who I would say is a genuine expert on whatever topic they are talking about. Interestingly these people have only claimed to be an expert after I am convinced they are. In truth however it should not matter if they are or are not a expert, all that matters is the content of their posts and threads any claim to be a “expert” should mean nothing.

Logic is the key. If any claim can stand up to logic it doesn't matter what one claims. False claims don't stand before logic for long.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
I would love to find out what qualifies a person as a “subject matter expert”?

I think It's just someone who has the time and inclination to go and copy and paste lots of facts and charts and stats from different websites and pass the info off as their own knowledge.

I think there many knowledgeable people on this site and it's fantastic when they join in on threads and really add something.... but there are many who just go and find stuff on the internet and then change it around a little and claim it's their knowledge.


I would love to see some of these people questioned in mutter or chat, where they had to respond immediately to questions posed, using their own brain.


It's not even really the "Subject matter experts" It's the self-proclaimed experts and former NASA workers and military men and scientists and blah blah....

Everybody's a somebody on ATS



[edit on 4/8/10 by blupblup]

reply to post by blupblup


I quizzed somebody who claimed to be ex-special forces on chat, was very funny just got lots of “I can answer that question”.

Originally posted by intrepid
Logic is the key. If any claim can stand up to logic it doesn't matter what one claims. False claims don't stand before logic for long.

I think knowledge is actually more important. For example, you constantly see people here say everything in space that looks weird is ice crystals, planets or satellites. Now, to disprove that, it takes a certain amount of knowledge which most people dont have. And that goes for every topic.

So thats why its easy for people with knowledge to intentionally mislead others.


[edit on 4-8-2010 by Copernicus]

reply to post by Copernicus


I would agree with you both, logic and knowledge are important.

reply to post by Copernicus




Is this statement in reference to me?



Check out my latest post on said thread.
There is significant evidence pointing towards what I claim it is.

Here's the catch.
It's what I claim it to be.

I am certainly no expert.
Everyone is entitled to one thing in life.
Their opinion.

Originally posted by Copernicus
So thats why its easy for people with knowledge to convince others, even if they are wrong.

A person would have to have knowledge on a subject but people have built in BS-O-Meters and if they go off it's not too hard to bag someone flying with BS.

Originally posted by havok
Is this statement in reference to me?

The example is from our thread but my impression of you was someone who did not attempt to mislead others.



[edit on 4-8-2010 by Copernicus]

I've been on a lot of bbs' and message boards in my time and I'd have to say that ATS has one of the best collection of experts that I have ever seen.

reply to post by kevinunknown


Does this come from the thread where everyone was giving you grief over the numerous times you've sighted being a 'scientist' but, you've never given up your background?

Hey, I'm not trying to 'stir' anything, or accuse you of being anything you are or are not, I just happened to read that thread yesterday and am honestly curious.

peace

Originally posted by damwel
I've been on a lot of bbs' and message boards in my time and I'd have to say that ATS has one of the best collection of experts that I have ever seen.

Sure, but anyone who is not a skeptic?

Ok, I knew there are a few of them around but my impression is that most of them are super-skeptics within their field and do not believe in any conspiracies at all.

I do remember when there was debates around 9/11 though. Very refreshing with experts on both sides of the argument (official story bogus or not).



[edit on 4-8-2010 by Copernicus]

reply to post by silo13


I think you might have me confused with somebody else because I don’t think I have ever claimed to be a “scientist”.

Kevinunknown, it sounds like you're annoyed by most people on ATS. You don't miss much out when you're having a whinge. Then you say your thread is only about the teency weency question or statement you shoved in there somewhere.

"what qualifies a person as a “subject matter expert”? "

Umm, they're trained or have a lot of experience with the subject matter?

Anyway, do folk ever win when discussing stuff on ATS? It's not very often a subject's closed and someone's won the argument, unless it's one of them -THAT'S A BIRD -ufo threads.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
I think you might have me confused with somebody else because I don’t think I have ever claimed to be a “scientist”.

Yes but judging from your avatar, have you claimed to be a "science project"?

Sorry, had to.

Originally posted by kevinunknown
The thing is, this really shouldn’t be the reason anybody win’s an argument because it is impossible for anybody to establish if it is the truth

I've been staring at this for a while and it still confusers me ...

I can't conceive of a more ego based prism through which to view discourse than the personalization of winning and losing.

Even in the debate forum where wins and loses are applied, most of us realize that winning a debate and winning an argument aren't one and the same. In fact depersonalizing any thought is what enables to debate any position on any issue.

To be honest ... it seems to me that if one considers winning and losing as part of the intellectual and discourse process, subject expertise will be the least of their frustrations.

[edit on 4 Aug 2010 by schrodingers dog]

reply to post by wigit


Nope that was just a additional question i though it would through in because I am genuinely curious about what qualifies a person to be a subject matter expert, it’s not that I have any problem with the subject matter experts. Quite interesting how you think of this as me having a moan, yes in some ways it is on other ways however it’s just an observation I have made.

Originally posted by damwel
I've been on a lot of bbs' and message boards in my time and I'd have to say that ATS has one of the best collection of experts that I have ever seen.

I have to agree there are some highly intelligent individuals posting on this forum,

I spend hours read it everyday, I cannot hold a candle to them,

There are such gifted writers and scholars, with such great recall,

I feel humbled.

Even though I don't agree with the majority of them,

Originally posted by wigit
"what qualifies a person as a “subject matter expert”? "

Umm, they're trained or have a lot of experience with the subject matter?

umm, sorry, but that's not really true.

A FSME is a person who has the ability to understand and facilitate a topic - a deep understanding of the topic is not as important as the ability to recognise and encourage good debate.

Of course, some FSME's have outstanding knowledge, but it is really not as big a requirement as you think.

As to the OP - well, I kind of understand where he/she is coming from, but at the same time it's not about winning or losing, it's about learning and expanding understanding of a given subject.

Knowledge without understanding means very little.

[edit on 4/8/2010 by budski]

Originally posted by kevinunknown
Quite interesting how you think of this as me having a moan,

this annoys me
that annoys me
I hate this
these guys are total liars


I think that's moaning.