Experts vs Critics
What makes for an expert? How is expertise measured?
I think in most instances the notion is kind of ridiculous and expertise has just turned into a cultural meme.
I think it’s a subjective measure built in relativity.
To my dad, I’m an expert in technology. But, compared to Kevin Kelly and Ray Kurzweil, I’m a neophyte.
Expertise is more context than content.
And to the critic expertise is a fleeting determinate.
To the critic a journalist reporting on scientific studies is just a journalist. He doesn’t work in this field. He didn’t conduct the studies. He gets paid to write not give conjecture on scientific models.
To the critic an amateur researcher expressing opinion on concepts is just an amateur. What’s his academic pedigree? He wasn’t formally trained and he has no credentials.
A neophyte documenting her journey is just that, a neophyte. She’s only been involved in the field for a limited time. What does she know? She’s certainly not an expert.
A scholarly professor lecturing on the findings of study is just an ivory tower intellectual. He hasn’t worked in the “real world”. Where’s his field knowledge? Maybe if he can get his nose out of a textbook long enough and get out into the real world, maybe he’d be more credible.
The moral; in the critics eye you will never be the be-all-end-all.
Write, create, and express anyway.