[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
Hi,
Am 27.01.2006 um 20:43 schrieb Nathan Young -X ((natyoung - Artizen
at Cisco)):
>
> To often we define expert as "someone who knows so much that they no
> longer need to take input" Often what is needed is a definition:
> "Someone who is constantly changing their criteria for what kind of
> input to pay most attention to and can effectively evaluate those
> criteria"
Physicists are a good example of experts, who are most of the time
consistently correct in their statements, as I think. There are
internationally installed, accepted and constant protocols for
becoming and being an expert in physics. Fraud is detected in the
long run at least. Its the same in technical disciplines based on
physics. Here we have areas, where there is only a small difference
between theory and practice - again: in the long run at least.
Klaus
|
