[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- From: Marcus Carr <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- To: Kimbro Staken <email@example.com>
- Date: Wed, 28 Mar 2001 16:38:27 +1000
Kimbro Staken wrote:
> > a) have nothing to offer, and
> > b) represent such a significant proportion that we should consider
> > their exclusion.
> Heh, heh, I didn't say either one of those things. I was merely answering
> the question of where experts can come from that do not come from the
Hmm, you're right - I might have reached my Diet Coke threshold for the day...
> They're still experts and usually extremely bright ones at that.
> How down to earth they are though is debatable and in my opinion that is how
> it should be. Researchers are supposed to think out of the box to come up
> with new ideas to increase our knowledge.
True, but I don't think we've gotten to where we are by not thinking outside the
box, so obviously researchers are just one group capable of such thought. I
guess the thing that annoyed me in the first place (not from your mail) was the
notion that experts are far removed from the field (inference being that they
couldn't code their way out of a wet tissue) and those in the field (despite
being much more clever) are unlikely to be regarded as expert. Those sorts of
generalisations don't do anyone service.
Marcus Carr email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Allette Systems (Australia) www: http://www.allette.com.au
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."