Google it?

I wonder what would happen if we could not? You too can become an expert in anyone else’s field. I think the availability of information is overwhelming and occasionally useful. The problem is, how do you test its validity?

Most of the real, authoritative stuff is not available without subscription, or membership of a professional body, and if you know little about the subject then you can become a little overwhelmed by the sheer contradictory nature of the opinions expressed. There is an awful lot of rubbish out there!

Books perhaps, or is this just a Luddite tendency?

104 thoughts on “Google it?”

  1. I’m with you on this, Araminta.

    It contributes to the modern misconception that “anyone can do anything”, which together with its sibling delusion “my opinion is just as good as yours” has resulted in the creation of many worthless but uppity people without education believing that they can challenge and denigrate real experts with impunity.

    Hasn’t it, Paul?

    PS: It’s early morning here, I’m only on my first cup of tea and I shall bite the head off anybody who disagrees with me. So there! 😈

  2. Minty, Like all things, there are different levels of knowledge. If you have a passing interest, then you might be happy with a generality, which may or may not be opinion rather than fact, this sort of stuff is readily available on-line. Or you can go deeper into reference material and seek out authoritative references, potential speculation and such like. This comes in various levels from authoritive narrative to many more acedemic sources, such as university presses which publish a lot more detail. Or you can go right back to the primary source and be at the coal-face, so to speak, although this isn’t always possible.

    In the end it depends what your burning need is.

    Books can be just as wrong or omitting as on-line sources.

  3. Bearsy: yes, and as you may have gathered I am not a fan of “cut and paste” battles. I refuse to engage in them. It is a question of evaluating the validity of information available, is it not?

    Please note: I am not disagreeing with you here. 🙂

  5. Ha, ha! Bearsy or should I say ‘Scare Bear?’

    Good morning! You are very funny.., that is, when I’m not feeling scared.

    If I sounded arrogant, I apologise. I don’t simply throw comments out there, only if I have a view, or disagree with something because of my own experience or knowledge. If it is wrong, well, I am prepared to learn. That’s part of the blogging experience. I also hope I have something worthwhile to contribute after accumulating my own personal experience. I may have been denied a formal education but I do not think it holds me back in any way and as I’ve said, I am not trying to ‘win’ an argument like the competitive types on MyT. Even experts can be wrong sometimes, so testing an argument is as interesting as being right or wrong.

    Egos are a wonderful and scary thing. Take the CB incident. I did try to give moral support while at the same time telling the person concerned that they should leave their baggage elsewhere. Yes, I may have bitten your hand off, which wasn’t my intention, but I was trying to draw the poisonous sting from an old festering wound.

    I rarely take offense at a blog unless it is directed at me as personal abuse.

    Please also remember, I am usually multi-tasking other things (including a full-time job) when I blog, so I do not have the luxury of sitting down and just blogging in isolation or with a pile of reference materials.If I am too enthusiastic, then that is my Achilles heel.

  7. Minty, It is about time and expedience. If I had time I would research, but I don’t. C&P is a quick alternative for a blog reply (not an original blog). Castigate me for my response to Bo if you like, but giving some substantiation to a reasoned argument is better than none. If you want purely academic content, then I expect we should make a point of stressing that a discussion is just that – academics only! Or else I can contribute elsewhere as part of the unwashed masses. I don’t believe blogging has any protocols. As a generality, I think there is a time and place for both approaches.

  8. Evening Paul: this was partly prompted by your comments on Boadicea’s recent post, but not entirely. Yes, different levels of knowledge, and it is a very useful tool, if you have the ability to sort the wheat from the chaff. How do you do that though? This is the question. I have been trying to do a bit of research recently, prompted by Bodicea’s posts, and become totally frustrated by the lack of serious information and dismayed by the some of the information I have been ploughing through.

    Books, well yes, but they are usually well researched and quote sources, often original but even experts disagree.

    Just an illustration of my problem here. When my children left home, they entrusted several goldfish to my tender care. I spent hours on the internet to find out why the first one died, discovered hundreds of sites devoted to their care, was totally confused, but after investing not an insignificant amount of time and money to this project, all the blooming things died! Testing the Ph thingy of the tank, changing the filter, and goodness knows what else, didn’t do the trick. Too much information and conflicting opinions perhaps.

  10. Hey Minty, when I went to school they taught me the Renaissance was triggered by the Fall of Constantiniple, which is blatantly WRONG! How was I supposed to know. I guess with experience you choose your sources carefully, read eye-witness accounts and try to find original evidence. Secondary source material is always a lottery because it is by definition slection and dependent. I don’t think there is an answer to that question, except to ask around and talk to people to exchange ideas and experiences with different source material. Different subjects require different approaches. A science would require identification of leaders in the field, for example, rather than perhaps archive data.

  11. I’m not actually Paul. I’m a great believer in blogging should be about expressing one’s opinions. We cannot all have the same level of expertise or interest in the same subjects.

    Just imagine though, what blogging would be like if we all had to rely on our memories, or the subjects we had studied in depth to whatever level.

    I’m am not castigating you, Paul, but I do think that a little circumspection is required occasionally. We don’t necessarily know each other well enough to assess their areas of expertise, and if you did not have access to Google, would you have presented the same challenge to Boadicea?

  12. Minty,

    You are right. Until Bearsy pointed out Bo’s expertise, I had no idea, but it really didn’t change my position. I made my point based purely on my own past knowledge and when asked to support it, I went away and found source material that backed the assertion. I wasn’t trying to be ‘clever’ or ‘undermine’ someone. I was just reinforcing my argument to show it was not baseless. If the extract was long, it was only because the subject is quite involved and I thought other blog readers might find the explanations interesting. I did not add it to ‘swamp’ the original (and what I appreciate was) precis of the subject matter. I was in fact only supporting the blog.

  13. Blimey,Paul: having just reread my last comment, I’m expecting someone to wade in and castigate ME, with some justification for dodgy syntax.

    I would be lost and totally at sea if commenting here or on MyT depended on any academic content, Paul. But, there are some very highly educated people on both sites, and that should be respected too. I mean of course, their in -depth knowledge of their subject.

  14. Bearsy,

    Sorry?

    Discussion or debate is not argumentative, and I have no idea why you think me arrogant. There is nothing wrong with projecting one’s self, but I sense a certain amount of hostility here, which I do not righly understand.

    Thank you for the denigration.

    I can see my comments are unwelcome, so I will withdraw.

  15. Minty, that is a given, but without a CV or list of credentials, their views are no more or less than anyone else’s. There appears to be a lot of ego with these ‘experts’ and they do not hold the general view in all things, so I think there has to be a bit of give and take, otherwise it simply becomes a case of superiority complex. If we are afraid to make our own assertions, then where does that leave us as participants?

  16. “You are right. Until Bearsy pointed out Bo’s expertise, I had no idea, but it really didn’t change my position.”

    Oh, well, Paul, I suppose I think maybe it should. Well, let us just say, it should have sounded a note of caution. Not that you should not present an alternative opinion of course, but the particular issue was not perhaps the right one. 🙂

  17. Minty, As far as I was concerned it was just a discussion about an interesting blog, not a ‘battle of acedemics’. I had just researched a piece which I was going to post on the Magna Carta; which I will know not put here, even though I spent a few hours researching it and writing the article. This happens to be the reason why I came to a contrary conclusion from my studdy of the causes of the Baronial Revolt of 1215 and the clauses of the Magna Carta itself concerning scutage, Forest Law and the banning of mercenaries in the English kingdom among other things.

    If my comment is that unwelcome, then I know not to comment in future. I can discuss this stuff with other friends but I thought it made an interesting discussion. I never rubbished the alternate view at any time. If someone doesn’t wish comment, they can turn comments off, I believe. Failing that, include a health warning!

  18. Paul: whatever you may think, this was really meant to be a rather more open discussion and it was not meant to be a personal attack on you, although this may well have ended up seeming so. I suspect you are rather more robust, or enthusiastic to take it to heart though.

  19. I will look forward to some robust debate on your Magna Carta blog, Paul, and I dare say that I may not agree with your conclusions, but it should make it an interesting discussion. Look forward to it. 🙂

  21. When it comes to the Stuart period, one quickly learns that you have a certain expertise, Minty. In any related discussion, I would take your opinion as definitive, and would hope to learn from it.

    I would defer to Christina on matters horticultural.

    Even in my own sphere, I recognise Ricks Rants as an authority on running a software company who should be hearkened to with both ears on HTTP and HTML subjects.
    Whilst I worked extensively with ATM systems (no, Air Traffic Management, not teller machines), I would always defer to Ferret when it come to aerodynamics or flight control systems. I also note that at least one MyT blogger (Doxon of Dick Green) has been an Air Traffic Controller, so I would naturally subordinate my opinions to his in that area of expertise.

    Mr Mackie and Mr Wolfe would be enthusiastically deferred to in any legal discussions.

    I see nothing strange in this.

    If Google or Wiki said something in one of these fields of endeavour that was contrary to our local experts, it would be Wiki or Google that I would treat with suspicion in the first instance.

    If Paul genuinely believes that with no education he can produce ‘opinions’ which are the equal of those propounded by people who have been engaged in the subject (whatever it is) for many years, who have been extensively educated in their specialism, he requires serious attitude adjustment.

    To weakly cry that “his opinions are not welcome” and that he will withdraw, is unconstructive and obdurate. He will never learn anything that way.

    But that’s modern culture for you – we’re all experts at everything these days.

  22. If you don’t post your article on Magna Carta, it will be because you are afraid that those who know more about it than you do will tear it to shreds.

    Which they probably will, if it’s wrong.

    But just think, perhaps you’ve got it right. You might receive plaudits and accolades.

    You’ll never know, if you don’t post it.
    There’s no gain without pain.

  26. Minty, Yes but this was never meant to be about Google was it? It was meant to be about C&P and since I am the only one (other than Levent) to use the function to support a supposition, it can only relate to that particular matter. It doesn’t take a lot of working out, even for me. The fact I have my own library and expertise is neither here nor there is it, it is about ‘bent out of shape’ egos.

    Sorry, but I do not operate by conventional rules.

    Convention is what has messed up this world and most ‘baby boomers’ haven’t bothered to pass on their wisdom (for what it is worth), so if you don’t get out and discover it for yourself, you really end up in the modern dark age that appears to be dawning (in general – thus the dumbing down effect). Knowledge isn’t the preserve of an exclusive few, but I respect it when it is outside my experience. I also think I know my limitations.

    People see your picture and they think they know you; it makes me laugh. How many of these people lecture at conferences, for example? Does one expertise disqualify you from another? I don’t think so. Everyone brings something to a discussion, whatever it may be and I’ve learnt from people who know far less than me, which why I always treat people as equals and not dismiss them out of hand, unless they give me good reason to.

    I am not up for bear-baiting, I come here to support the site and offer some content. I can see now that it will be highly critisised for the wrong reasons and that makes it a pointless exercise. I don’t know why my comment is unappreciated but if others think I am simply a b*llsh*tter, then they are entitled to their opinion, but it is rather hurtful and spiteful and certainly not in the spirit of blogging (I would also say unjustified if I can cite references, however rightly or wrongly – and yes, I am open to correction). I do not recall having slagg*d anyone off over their views.

  27. Minty, No I didn’t say there was any restriction upon comment or view. Bearsy has been very fair in allowing different views to be expressed but he is the only person I’ve noted making personal comments about people rather than blogs. There of course isn’t a rule to say you can’t but then comments like:

    “A perfect example of the arrogance of ignorance.

    You are an argumentative bugger who thinks his jejeune witterings should be taken seriously.

    You are an embarrassment to yourself and all who sail in her.”

    are hardly constructive. Perhaps the Bear can support this with adequate references from google to support the supposition (not the definition)?

  28. I’ve come late to this, because of trying to answer questions elsewhere.
    Paul your comment:

    ‘There appears to be a lot of ego with these ‘experts’’ You’re probably right, I probably do have an insufferable ‘superiority complex’. After all I’ve only spent well over 30 years looking at the stuff, have shelves of books relating to the topic (and others). What’s all that compared to a quick ‘Google’ Search and a bit of cut and paste?

    Don’t get me wrong… I’m all for discussing my ideas, and I’m quite prepared to change my opinion, but only when an alternative viewpoint is supported by solid facts.

    Years ago I read a disgruntled letter to the editor from a very eminent 17th C historian complaining that his children had been told to write an imaginative account of living during the Civil War. His complaint was that they knew absolutely nothing about the Civil War, social conditions or anything else pertaining to the period.

    Post your bit on Magna Carta – take a gamble! 😉

  30. Ah yes Araminta! Google and Wiki!!

    I shall tell a tale here, mentioning no names! But a friend of mine wrote a splendid spoof on the Black Death in California… it found its way to the internet, where it has been acclaimed as a most scholarly dissertation….

  32. I have removed two comments which Boadicea told me were badly expressed, even if the content was accurate. I will repost in different terminology.

  33. Bo, if I do it will be next week when I have time. I already made my position clear in the blog itself. I was supporting your discussion, not deconstructing it. By raising points I gave you a que (should you have the time and inclination) to make your point (which you did on the tax comparison between Richard and John. The fact that you have better accuracy of information brings to light an opportunity to improve the database. Why not add your comments to Google, so that next time a total ‘f*ck wit’ like me uses it because I only have five minutes between meetings (rather than 5 hours to study) to offer the courtesy of a reply to a direct request, I can give you or someone else a ‘bang-on’ answer?

    I think a lot of the grey hairs here, think I too am retired. I am not, I work full time and fit this in around my other activities.

    I think even you can see I admitted my own mistake and corrected part of my own statement unchallenged. I have no preconceptions about the infallability of my memory from which much is relied during business hours.

    As I’ve said before, I think your articles are superb and I in no way critisise them; even if I believe there may have been other contributory factors to the Richard/John perceptions. I would hope I am entitled to my own view; and yes, I am open to persuasion otherwise.

  34. By the way Araminta – I noticed elsewhere that you said you had been digging around looking at some more information on my historical snippets – thanks! Can I possibly persuade you to write a bit….

  35. Nope, Paul, in short, although I actually have little tolerance for huge swaths of “cut and paste”, it was not about that. It was however about a genuine problem with assessing the validity of anything posted on the internet.

    Egos, well, that is something different. I don’t think anyone is baiting you, but I understand you may feel differently. I see no reason why you should be hurt, by what is after all just someone’s opinion of you. I certainly feel that you are genuinely interested in history, so as everyone has said, publish and be dammed, and be prepared to defend your conclusions. You may be right or you may be wrong. But, let me just say that I would not engage in a serious discussion about, AGW for example because, although I have my views, I don’t have the necessary scientific knowledge to evaluate the evidence. It is an imprecise analogy but you hopefully take my point.

  36. I will try, Boadicea but strangely enough, this post is about my frustration at trying to wade through all the dross trying to find something worthwhile. I may have to improve my googling skills. Most of it is just rubbish, and very superficial rubbish at that. I need some books 🙂

  37. Don’t tell me! I look at the ‘What happened this day’ sites to find something within the scope of what I know, look at Google… and then head for my books!

    I find the internet wonderful for finding original documents … but as you say, so much else is superficial.

    Excuse me I’m off to find the references I want for tomorrow’s blog – on my bookshelves!

    P.S. I’ve also found that some of dates on those sites are a bit iffy, too… 🙂

  38. I am forced by circumstances and the distaff side of the firm to write a serious, non-emotive, un-jocular[?], un-Australian comment for the edification of the lesser mortals on this site in simple terms that they might understand, without the use of irony above their heads.

    What’s that Bo, I’m doing it again? Oh sorry dear, I’ll begin anew.

    Ahem!
    Herewith a serious re-examination of the subject of this post and the diverse characters contributing.

    No, it’s no good Bo – I can’t do it. When some [expletive deleted] says –

    Why not add your comments to Google …

    I cannot take them seriously.

    Let’s try a different approach entirely.
    Do you watch television, Paul? In particular, do you watch the programs on history presented by David Starkey? What do you think of them, and of David himself?

    Then we’ll move on, step by step.

  41. Bearsy, Okay, I can play ball. This is after all a sociable discussion.

    David Robert Starkey is an alleged historian who seems to have a background qualified in the London School of Economics, he is controversial having been accused of misogyny and speaking out against feminism in history. He is alledgely gay, has had both leftist and more recently right wing views and is dismissive of UK nationalists. While he has narrated several historial series about the monarchy and the Tidors, etc. he appears to have no grounding of expertise in History or specialist knowledge. He is at best therefore a presented.

    David J Starkey is a Marine Historian at Leeds University specialising in Maritime History. He has been in the Hull history department since 1994. He has written on subject such as British Privateers, Distribution of MArine Industry, Growth and Transition. He is currently involved in work on Marine Anmal populations and England’s Sea Fisheries and his specialty appears to extend from circa 1500-Present Day.

    He appears to be the more professional historian of the two, but neither are my particular area of expertise.

    My turn.

    What is your view of F. Loraine Petrie as a historian?

  43. No Paul, it’s my game.

    Yes, you’ve googled and you’ve found the Wiki entries. Well done. Now, it’s obviously the first chap I’m talking about, since the second hasn’t made any television programs. Two further questions –

    1. Have you watched those programs, or seen any others in which DS has been included?

    2. Why do you make the statement –

    he appears to have no grounding of expertise in History or specialist knowledge. He is at best therefore a presented [sic].

    How do you deduce that? It’s not what the Wiki entry says, so your reasoning here would be most interesting, and helpful to the expansion of this thread.

  44. Oh, this is so painful to watch, Bearsy, it’s like being at the dentist. What would you gentlemen do without our “moderating” influence. 😉 I’ll check back later to see how you are getting on. Just keep an eye on them please, Boadicea.

    Don’t be discouraged, Paul!

  45. I have seen the programmes referred to. I did not watch them seriously they are merely a sketch and summary, very much like the sort of thing that Simon Sharma and Richard Holmes do. In his case, Starkey appears, as I said to be more of a narrator rather than someone with a working experience of his subject, so he is no more authority on the subject than say Prince Edward.

    The programme skims the broadest facts.

    Foremost, he is not a primary (or even a secondary)source and I cannot verify his sources from an half hour television programme compiled by someone else.

  50. Hmm!
    Right, thank you Paul. You may be interested to know that David Starkey received both his MA and PhD at Cambridge, studying under Sir Geoffrey Elton (an eminent Tudor historian); his thesis was on the Court of Henry Tudor at the time of Anne Boleyn.

    You have misread Wiki, which states that he is a specialist in the Tudor period and taught history at the LSE. It is not your fault that Wiki didn’t tell you about DS’s qualifications. Wiki’s information is often not complete.

    So you have elected to disregard DS as having “no more authority on the subject than say Prince Edward”. How wrong you are. Are you prepared to agree that you got that wrong? Concede? If not, please prove your assertion. We can’t proceed until this point is established one way or the other.

    However, since you said you know what’s coming, let us not waste time on establishing basic facts. Tell me, where are we going? What is my “game” leading to?

  51. Bearsy, you are a very likable chap. I actually enjoy our discussions, as much as you might consider me to be ‘young upstart’ at my tender age.

    Prince Edward is in fact quite an authority on the history of the Royals, so it is unfortunate to dismiss him out of hand. Like Sharma and Holmes, Starkey is indeed a qualified historian. I chose to use the word ‘working experience’ deliberately.

    Your point, I believe is to suggest that qualification is a guide to authority on a subject, which it may or may not be. We can all do a degree course in a subject or even a doctorate, but do we USE that experience appropriately? I am certain that half the things we study and learn we never use. So what is better, vocational experience or academic theory? Clearly you believe in the latter over the former but that doesn’t make you right and it doesn’t mean that you have any authority (this is purely discussion not assertion) over another person with whom you do not have carte blanche; that is simply arrogance.

    Most academics think that life owes them simply for going through the process, when in actual fact it doesn’t. It may make someome more aware, or more rounded but it doesn’t necessarily replace ability, skill, acumen and application. This is where our views most likely diverge.

    If I am poor at communicating my views, it is because of my lack of education!

    So was this your point, or do you have another to teach me?

    As I mentioned, I realise ‘Google’ isn’t a primary source, but it does produce a ‘quick glance’ despite the need for caution ad for example, you might not have identified another David Starkey without it! With time, you can also cross reference.

  52. Don’t let me keep you from your bed, Paul, we can always continue this tomorrow.
    I am preparing my response to your last comment – it may take a while as I have other things to do in parallel, but not too long, if you can stay awake. 🙂

  53. It is rather late, but I will leave the computer on a short while and return for a look before turning in. You might have noted I was on here with Soutie at around 5am this morning, so it has been a long day but not a-typical for me and my unconventional lifestyle. The price of travelling around the globe I’m afraid, eventually you have no idea which time zone you’re in anymore and 20 hour days (which I am glad to say I no longer do) don’t help either.

  54. Yes, my grandchildren think I’m a lovely cuddly old chap, but that doesn’t advance this discussion.

    Now, rather than answer my question as to whether you had made a mistake, you have raced off on a trail of obfuscation. I shall deal with that first.

    You have turned your comment on Prince Edward on its head – I will not pursue that particular furphy, it would be entirely nugatory.

    As far as “working experience” is concerned, your assertion is laughable. DS has a wealth of “working experience”. He has performed extensive research in his subject and is the author of many publications which reflect that research. You can use Google to confirm this if you like (be careful not to confuse any written by his marine namesake), the list is quite long. I add a short citation from one of the sites you might encounter –

    He is a winner of the WH Smith Prize and the Norton Medlicott Medal for Services to History presented by Britain’s Historical Association.

    Incidentally, he wrote his own TV programs.

    Schama [please note the spelling] is also a guy with a proud record of “working experience” as a historian. Prove me wrong.

    You have not deduced “my point” correctly. You appear to share a tendency with Sciencebod, which is to read into my writing things which are not there; you have both recently made statements about what I have said/implied which exist only in your imaginations, not in my written word. But to address this section of your comment –

    You display the same chip on your shoulder which often appears in those without formal education. You sneer at formal qualifications, regarding experience, ability, skill, application and “acumen” as the only yardsticks of capability. One doesn’t get degrees, masters or doctorates handed out with the frozen peas, Paul. There are times when formal qualifications can be very handy, and they are, surprise, surprise, quite difficult to acquire.

    I have no problem with those who have risen in their chosen careers without qualification – good luck to them. Think how much more they may have been able to achieve, or more quickly, had they benefited from early training.

    You say “clearly you believe …”, and “most academics think …”. No, Paul, you are mistaken in both assertions. That is not what I believe, nor have most graduates that I have employed had that mindset. One or two have, but they’ve soon learnt that practical experience is also required in industrial environments.

    You may be confusing qualifications with “success in life”, and with “money making ability”. They are not the same thing. An academic can not and should not deride a barrow boy become trading mogul from a financial standpoint, nor should the successful uneducated businessman sneer at the poor researcher chipping away at the frontiers of knowledge for a pittance.

    But, as I said at the beginning, all this is a diversion from the current point in question.

    You made a snap decision, based on incomplete information and faulty (or cursory, if you prefer) analysis of that data, that DS was worthless as a primary historical source. I have shown you to be wrong.

    Will you admit to that so that we may move on?

  55. Bearsy, I will catch up tomorrow if I have time. I have a busy weekend and I am preparing to travel next week, but I will pop-in when I can. I am not ignoring you.

    Best wishes,

    Paul

  58. Hey Ike, I’ve just had a look at that MyT page, but we don’t seem to be mentioned there. Have comments been deleted?

    UPDATE – don’t worry, I found it.

  59. Bearsy

    My oh my?

    “I also note that at least one MyT blogger (Ike, I think) has been an Air Traffic Controller, so I would naturally subordinate my opinions to his in that area of expertise.”

    You are way out on this one. I had to fly a lot once upon a time but never got over my fear for it. To be a controller? Nobody in his right mind would consider or recommend me to even carry the sandwiches for the ground crew. LOL

  60. Fair enough, Ike, sorry.
    Can you remember who said they were – it was on Janh1’s blog about Kai Tak (or whatever the Hong Kong old airport was called).

  61. Poor Cool Hand Luke had his entire profile deleted yesterday or the day before. And thanks for the Welcome. I stumbled in here as I said and have only read a little so far but I liked what I saw. And the way you got me here was a true gem.

  62. Glad you’re here – but it was nothing to do with me – honest! I don’t know who Amy is – perhaps one of our members does?

    I’m guessing, but I think CHL may have deleted his own account, so that he could open a new one. One or two of us know how to do that. Only our own accounts, not other people’s.

  63. Bearsy

    Whoever done it, it was a novel way of getting results. I shall be laughing right through the entire weekend.

  66. Bearsy,

    Okay, you might want to sit down, get comfortable and relax, it’s a long reply, but I believe necessary.

    When you play a ‘game’ even you have to play by the rules, and that means not making things up as you go along.

    I did not make it up my assertion; it was based upon your original statement, which clearly underlines your earlier thinking (otherwise why say it?) and leads to a conclusion:

    “It contributes to the modern misconception that “anyone can do anything”, which together with its sibling delusion “my opinion is just as good as yours” has resulted in the creation of many worthless but uppity people without education believing that they can challenge and denigrate real experts with impunity.”

    You may not have understood correctly, but I didn’t make it up.

    ‘Impunity’ is irrelevant, since I have not made that assertion, likewise the word ‘uppity’ and ‘denigrate’ are a personal an interpretation not a precise fact; but I DO assert that anyone can challenge anything if they have a mind to and a reason for doing so; indeed they may even challenge if they don’t have reason if they labour under a misapprehension, which of course can be corrected by reasoned discussion/argument and perhaps evidence. In fact evolution leads us to challenge convention at all times, sometimes in imperceptible ways and sometimes in significant ways. It is this testing of the assumptions that reinforce a view or belief and progress it, or helps us to adapt to change.

    The heart of this question is what makes a real expert?

    In some fields, notably science and technology (I believe your field) academia may well have the necessary advantage over practical experience, in others it does not. Creative arts for example are not simply taught, a talent is required. Since I do not blog on science and give way to superior knowledge that assertion of arrogance is clearly false. Whereas in a subject that I enjoy, such as history, I may very well have an informed view or opinion.

    The answer is not simply ‘what you would like it to be’. Dismissing Prince Edward, who had his own film company and wrote his own series on the history of the Royal Family isn’t good enough, simply because it doesn’t fit your script.
    As for awards, well I am afraid they are often circulated for things which do not necessarily represent outstanding achievement. Even Nobel Prizes get won for dubious reasons these days.

    The point you made about the apparent weaknesses in ‘Google’ is made and accepted, so there is no need to repeat that assertion. I haven’t contested it. In the future it will replace dusty tomes, so it needs updating with knowledge to ensure it is the most comprehensive and accurate medium in future, otherwise man might start believing in Adam & Eve and God’s Creation over rational thinking and Science. It must be viewed as a work in progress.

    Quote: “As far as “working experience” is concerned, your assertion is laughable.”
    Further reinforces your view of the superiority of academia over practical application, which I DO contest. You make no case for this throw away comment.
    I do not think Colin and I are anything like each other at all, this is just an aspersion. We don’t share the same common interests or perspectives. I think I shown that by flagging your comment with you on his blog when I could quite clearly see the potential risk of you driving him off with the tome of your comment.

    He needed an ally at that point, rightly or wrongly and he needed to feel he had made his point. Clearly there is a lot of angst there about past rows elsewhere. By interceding I simply tried to smooth out an awkward wrinkle by taking a neutral stance.

    In comparing me with him, again you are being entirely unfair because, you invited me to jump ahead, which gave you every opportunity to move in another direction, it proves nothing and I have shown you above that my supposition is rooted in your original statement and not in pure guesswork. You will have to try harder to undermine my case, if that is your object.

    Stubborn I can accept, tenacious would be a compliment but unfounded, no.
    If you knew me, you would be shocked to know I do not actually have a chip on my shoulder. Perhaps my writing style is too severe; perhaps it comes across that way? I can be confident and assertive but I am actually a very humble person. This is a guy who generally puts other people first. One reason I blog is because I care about what is happening around me, not just for fun. I am certainly not a self-promoter. I do not think I am any better than anyone else, but neither am I worse than them either. We are all made equal and we all have different talents and skills. Circumstances can shape us, as much as application. Do I fight my corner, sure.

    I refrain from lobbying UK politics on your site because I feel the character here is different to MyT, which has more of a polarised view on that subject and I appreciate it isn’t of interest to non-UK residents. You seem to have drawn a view of me based upon the blog content I have contributed, which I hoped would be helpful. This ‘rites of passage’ ritual isn’t necessary, I don’t believe in pecking orders or hierarchies, I prefer teamwork and contribution.

    “You sneer at formal qualifications.”

    I do not. I refute that claim.
    I simply believe they do not necessarily grant an automatic superiority and that even a less well educated person can sometimes teach you something you didn’t know. I simply maintain that in some fields it is not necessary to have an academic background and even that does not grant automatic superiority. I know what education entails, I am not oblivious. If I have been vociferous it is only in response to insistence to the contrary view.

    Clarifications:

    “Clearly you believe..”. from your supposition.

    Founded on the points you have made, as quoted at the top of this reply.

    “Most academics think… “ in my experience.

    Perhaps it is a City-thing here in the UK, but arrogance is preponderantly the preserve of non-scientific academics in circles such as business management. I have seem a great many such types well and truly cock-up, take the current economic crisis.

    I am not confusing these points with “success in life” or “money making ability”, this was a discussion about the relative merits of book learning and practical experience. I never mentioned success or wealth. Again, you break your own rules by basing your statements upon unfounded supposition, nor anything about “rising in a chosen career” either. The relative careers and wealth of individuals is also not at issue here. In many cases the advancement is offset by the student debt one incurs in education with few exceptions.

    Perhaps you believe I am coming at this from an entirely different direction to the one I have taken? You seem to feel I have an axe to grind with academia. I do not. I merely dislike being told someone else is better because of a piece of paper and a vague mumble about years of study. It offers no guarantee it merely offers a probability of wider knowledge but not even necessarily in a relevant discipline.

    You asked my view of David Starkey and I told you what appeared to be the case. I did not make any personal assertions nor give any guarantees to the veracity of the information offered. I simply followed the course you asked me to. Now you can say I am dissembling, but the point is this, I do not disagree with your comments about Mr Starkey because I do not currently have any evidence to refute it without doing the necessary checking. The point you appear to be pressing is not disputed. I can trust you on it for sake of this discussion. It is not pivotal.
    Your contentions are no less fallible than mine in terms of the opinions you sprinkle into your comments and I would suggest you have made some pretty giant leaps of faith in your own thinking. Now you will tell me of course that they were deliberate provocation to get a reaction, but the point is that we agree on the inaccuracies of Google and I can take you at your word that what you say about Mr Starkey is correct, so neither of those points really change the underlying reason for this discussion, which started on the subject of C&P; a method I stated at the outset to Minty was really only an expediency to time constraints and the spirit of blogging to support my recollection of what I already had to my knowledge. I made clear to Bo my position in her blog, after all a blog is inviting comment, so why not contribute something to the discussion?

    Perhaps now you can explain why you think I am “an embarrassment to yourself and all who sail in her.”

    Is this some kind of witch-hunt or crusade against the unenlightened? Remember of course that a great deal of western knowledge of mathematics, medicine, etc. came from the Infidel.

    I wonder. Perhaps you think I am something I am not?

    This is still a civilised discussion as far as I am concerned and there is no personal agenda here. We can agree to differ and end the conversation at any time.

  67. Being a firm believer in formal education, I also believe in rigorous, rational argument. I observe that Paul often strays from these standards or debate – perhaps owing to a lack of formal training therein?

  68. Bearsy :

    Glad you’re here – but it was nothing to do with me – honest! I don’t know who Amy is – perhaps one of our members does?

    I’m guessing, but I think CHL may have deleted his own account, so that he could open a new one. One or two of us know how to do that. Only our own accounts, not other people’s.

    Naah Bearsy,

    He was defo banned because of the blog he posted the other day demanding an online apology from the mods over his previously deleted blog.

    He came back quite quickly and obviously, as the “Simulatio” character.

    It seems the Amy character has been suspended too. I don’t know who did it or how it was done bur it has brought this site Ike so I am more than happy that the end has justified the means. 🙂

  69. Not having had much of an education myself, I am wary about making a contribution here. However, I will say this. It is one thing to study a subject and to know its intricacies, but it is another to draw a correct conclusion from the data available. That is apparent in the way that many academics, whether they be historians or scientists will disagree with each other. It is common for an expert in a field to make a reputation by proposing a particular theory and publishing it. while another equally qualified expert attempts to oppose or disprove the theory, Both will fight their ground. Here you have a situation where one of the experts is quite obviously wrong. It is difficult to back down if a long held belief shows signs of being flawed. Famed astronomer, Sir Fred Hoyle coined the term Big Bang intending it as a pejorative. He disagreed with the theory that was being proposed at the time and in fact his dogmatic stance seriously damaged his long term reputation.

    The point I am trying to make is that being an expert in a field, does not make one right.(Not that I am suggesting that anybody here is making any such claims about anything.) Experts are often prevented from drawing conclusions outside of the norm because of their own prejudices and those of their colleagues or even society. In this very PC age, for example, it is very difficult to draw conclusions that would endorse any of Hitler’s behaviour, or the benefits of slavery, or apartheid, etc. James Watson, joint Nobel Laureate for his work on the structure of DNA, was totally lambasted for his conclusions on race. Yet here he was a world renowned geneticist. So too it was difficult for Galileo to oppose the teaching of the Church by proposing that the earth revolved around the sun. The scholar may have a monopoly on the access to data, he does not necessarily have a monopoly on the conclusions. Sometimes academia gets in the way of common sense.

  71. Wise words Sipu.

    I do not think you should be precluded from commenting on anything on a mere blog for want of authority. In the end blogging (in the main) is more to do with opinion than debate. Of course that isn’t to preclude debate, if that is the intended aim, but I suspect when Janus refers to ‘straying from these standards’ he is merely confusing opinion with debate. Opinion can be a decision between ‘eggs’ and ‘cornflakes’ for breakfast. Neither choice is necessarily wrong, it is just a choice.

    I suspect a scientist would have to test which breakfast was most effective before deciding.

  72. Paul, I was referring to standards of debate (my typo earlier) and did not mean opinion but reasoned conclusions which depend on logical argument. Opinions are birds of a different feather.

  73. PS HOWEVER if you state that an opinion which is in conflict with clear evidence, you mustn’t try to justify yourself!

  75. Sipu

    It is nice meeting you here, and to congratulate you on your views. I concur with Paul that you spoke “wise words.”

    Will everyone however, please allow me to say that I appreciate, though I am a late arrival, having been part of a discussion that could never have taken place on the “other Site” that we all come from?

    My view is that we have now covered this aspect from every possible angle from both of the main points as put forward by Bearsy and Paul, and from the others. They were not really in conflict in my view and I have learned from both. That is one of the primary reasons why I Blog.

    I now want to see the rest of the Site that I did not even know existed when I got up yesterday. Thank you guys.

  76. Paul, I do not believe that any sensible purpose would be served by continuing this thread.

    Thank you, Janus, for your contribution.

    Sipu, I confess I do not understand your comment. Who is “clearly wrong”, and about what? Spell it out, dear chap, if you would be so good.

    My apologies, Araminta, for hijacking your blog; I should have closed after my 9:59pm comment 😥

  78. Welcome, Ike. Good to see you. I’m running out of time this morning, so I haven’t caught up with the comments here. I will go through them all later though.

  79. No apologies necessary, Bearsy. All contributions are welcome, and I’m happy for the discussion to continue, if required. I started the ball rolling but just let it go where it will. 🙂

  80. Bearsy, relax old chum, I am not accusing anybody of being wrong, certainly not Boadicea, the defence of whom towards which I suspect you are leaping. (How is that for a Churchillian phrase?) I am merely stating that if two experts disagree one of them is right and so the other must be wrong. If an amateur take the opposing view to the expert who is wrong, then it makes the amateur right. That is just logic.

    Let me give an example. I am no financial expert, but I was predicting a crash in property prices when many experts were giving all sorts of reasons why it would not happen. I could no quote many of their statistics about relative earnings in the 2000s compared to the 1990s, but it was apparent that people were being given bigger mortgages than they could afford to service and so regardless of the financial instruments at the disposal of the institutions or any other complex theories, eventually there was going to be a collapse. And that is ultimately what happened for the reasons I supposed. Does that make me an expert? No? Was I right and the experts (some of them) wrong? Yes.

    Please do not think I would dare contradict Bo. I went down that route three years ago on the subject of Bloody Mary and got my fingers burnt, if you will excuse the pun.

  81. Janus, I am not sure what all the fuss is about over a comment I left on a blog, which when asked to support, I gave references. Is that unreasonable? I am actually quite happy to admit the more precise clarification as being more accurate than any quick websearch, but what is being massively overlooked here is that I did not make a baseless case for my viewpoint AND I happily accepted correction. I am not sure it warranted either this pursuit of a witch-hunt or the facetious follow up blog which is just puerile. Even an expert does not hold exclusive rights to opinion.

  83. Thanks Sipu – no, I was genuinely puzzled by the ‘here’ in ‘here you have a situation’. I am not feeling defensive this evening – for a change! A mellow glow from the beer has pervaded my aged brain and temporarily smoothed out the rough bits.

    My favourite Churchillism is “Up with this I will not put”. 😉

  85. I cannot resist observing that in my view, financial experts are not experts. Money has no real existence, so their discipline is founded on sand for starters.

    Your common-sense approach was followed by many. Another misquotation springs to mind – “All men are experts, but some are more expert than others”. 😆

  86. You will note that I did not offer it as a precise quotation, that would require me to check the wording, but you got the gist.

    I do not disagree with you on this last point and why should I? You have seen the results of convention on the economic process. Are you labouring under a misapprehension about me, or a preconceived bias? Not that it matters.

  90. Experts can and often do, offer an explanation that favors the highest bidder. This strange phenomenon is acted out on almost a daily basis in courts of law throughout the land.

    I once read somewhere, the definition of an expert is:-

    “Someone who learns more and more about less and less.”

    No experts were hurt in the writing of this comment.

  92. Oh am I glad I restrict myself to gardening, geography and geology apart from facetious sardonic comments to amuse myself!

    I’m a great believer in books and have rather an extensive library, apart from the sound suppressing and insulation values they keep one from the ‘pitfalls of Wiki’!

    To Wikipedia I will not go!

    I see all is as serene as to be expected.

  93. I can’t even begin to tackle the comments here, so I will just thank everyone for commenting. Tocino, I’m relieved no experts were harmed 😉

    Ferret: yes indeed.

    Tina: your “facetious sardonic comments ” amuse us all too. 🙂

  95. Two rude and thoughtless comments here from bloggers who ought to know better.
    Some sarcastic ones elsewhere on the site from Paul, who doesn’t know any better.

    Just as well the site moderator’s a tolerant old chap, innit?
    😆

  99. I have no intention of removing them Araminta.

    The misogynistic, ill-educated, graceless and impolite remarks shall remain for posterity, labelling their authors forever as the bogans they are, for all the world to see.

    [Bogan is approximately equivalent to ‘chav’, I understand. Only worse.]

Add your Comment