Thread 16810319

>be me, undergrad
>see an error in one of my professor's powerpoints
>point it out to him, "this equation is wrong"
>he agrees and corrects it
doesn't this interaction prove that sometimes experts can be wrong and uneducated people can be right? why are experts dismissing regular people that have new ideas about their field of expertise? for example cosmology doctorates dismissing me when I tell them the speed of light is not constant? shouldn't they take my suggestion seriously and at the very least check if I'm right or not?
experts can be wrong too, claiming they're not is disingenuous
with the amount of mistakes I found on my professor's notes, I can eeven say that normal people are right way more often than experts

>>16810319 (OP)
Stop making your mother cry, op.

>>16810319 (OP)
Scientists and professors can often be wrong, it's human and no theory is perfect. Studies from 100 years ago used to be viewed as scientific fact when us modern people look at the science of those times and realize how bogus it was since we've disproved it. And Doctors and engineers make more mistakes than you would like to know. So to answer your question yes but it's more so that there's retarded professors and researchers just like there's average retards. It's good that you question it and honestly a good professor is willing to answer a question or theory even if it's false

>>16810319 (OP)
Regular people are uneducated and are much more wrong much more often than experts. Your anecdotes are worthless.

>>16810332
Well yes but experts can be wrong too. But that doesn't mean the average joe like you said is as smart as a scientific expert but even expert scientists can be wrong since at the end of the day their people too. That's why a good expert is willing to test their theory again and question it more than once

>>16810337
Why are you saying that as though it's a discovery you've made? Are you retarded? This is why regular people like you are not taken seriously.

>>16810343
Never said it's a discovery but okay. I was agreeing with your point, what type of research/field are you in?

>>16810350
No, you weren't agreeing with my point. You were trying to justify your retarded thread. I will not tell you anything about what my field is.

>>1681035
>>16810352
Okay, but I am agreeing with you that the average person doesn't know more than a scientist/researcher but are you saying that research and data can't be wrong? I think OP was making a broad statement but I'm curious about more of your thoughts if you don't mind

>>16810368
research entails the scientific method, it literally forces you to proof your hypothesis or supplies evidence to the contrary.
Data cant be wrong unless your data gathering setup is faulty.
Interpreting data is where it gets iffy because ppl tend to put their own biases in the interpretation.

>>16810368
>are you saying that research and data can't be wrong?
Where in my posts do you think I said that?
> OP was making a broad statement
OP said: "I can eeven say that normal people are right way more often than experts"
Do you agree with that?

>>168103
>>16810376
Thank you for explaining in simple terms

>>16810378
Nevermind I don't agree with that. That's a naive point of view, it's good to question things but saying a civilian more than an expert in their field is foolish. My bad for misinterpreting

>>16810332
This is true for STEM and some humanities. Being an expert on opinionated fields is worthless. If nobody in a field can agree on even the most basic things, that necessarily means an expert is as about as likely to be correct as a layman.

Sex with You.

>>16810422
It's true only for STEM.

>>16810319 (OP)
Precisely zero people are claiming that experts are infallible or that the uneducated can never be right. The problem arises when you disregard the credentials entirely.

My opinion as a layman in a field is not equal to the opinion of an expert in that field. That's no excuse to not apply some critical thinking to what the expert is telling me. But it does mean I should spend more time listening to their argument and trying my best to understand it than I do actively searching for gotchas that justify my preexisting opinions.

Your professor absent-mindedly slapped a power point together and made a simple error, probably as an afterthought when he got done doing real work in his field for the day. The fact that he recognized you were correct when you pointed out the error is evidence enough that the error wasn't the result of some sort of misunderstanding on his part. It's just a lack of attention payed when putting it together.

>>16810352
salty bitchmade faggot, keep doing your unfruitful unwanted wrong """"science"""" in your adult day care """"university"""""

>>16810319 (OP)
There are some people without degrees that are way smarter and way more right than some people with degrees, yes. You could happen to be one of those smart (yet) non degree havers.

>>16810319 (OP)
Example 1: You point out an error in an equation. Your claim is not unreasoneble and the professor looks at the evidence (equation) and spots the mistake.

Example 2: You claim that the speed of light is not constant, which is a widely accepted fact, established more than a century ago. I am assuming that you didn't immediately offer significant evidence to the fact, since it likely doesn't exist. Therefore the guy you're talking to rightly ignores you for being a retard.

Nothing would ever be accomplished if experts were forced to entertain every stupid idea from uneducated morons. But they should, and hopefully do, listen to well founded arguments, regardless of their source.

>>16811171
>Nothing would ever be accomplished if experts were forced to entertain every stupid idea from uneducated morons.
This, see also the "bullshit asymmetry principle". Peer review is only free if the reviewer's time is worthless.

>>16810319 (OP)
you are an undergrad activly learning , you could be considered a demi expert in this situation.

>>16810319 (OP)
Already asking for a mile

>>16810319 (OP)
>doesn't this interaction prove that sometimes experts can be wrong and uneducated people can be right?
No

>>16810319 (OP)
>uneducated people can
By being an undergraduate and taking a (nonremedial) class in a subject you are already more of an expert than most of the population
>shouldn't they take my suggestion seriously and at the very least check if I'm right or not?
They did hundreds times through experimentation. The fact that you didn't know that is probably why they dismissed you