On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 16:39:42 -0700, Hawke
wrote:

On 10/25/2011 7:31 AM, John B. wrote:

That's not what I'm saying either. History is littered with the mistaken
statements from "experts". I'm reminded of the famous one from a general
in either the revolutionary war or the civil war, I can't remember
which, where he told his men that nobody could hit them at this range.
And then he was promptly shot. So not just being an expert or scientist
guarantees you are always right about anything. Sometimes the expert is
wrong and the amateur is right.

Civil war.

But I was not referring to mistaken statements I was referring to what
was the last minute, up to date, TRUTH.... as understood to be at the
time.

When Semmelweis was arguing that washing the hands would reduce child
bed fever he was ridiculed by the majority of the medical profession
because they had been taught in medical school that it was
unnecessary. Adam Smith argued that a "free market economies are more
productive and beneficial to their societies" was accepted as though
it was carven on tablets of stone for nearly 300 years however I now
see some cracks in the dike and a great many people seem to be
advocating something different.


But as a general rule I'll go with the recommendations of the expert
over the amateur. I'll listen to a professional golf caddie when he says
what club to use and not you. I'll take the word or the army ordnance
expert when he tells me I'm not our of the range of a blast and not some
bystander. I think you get my drift, and that when it comes to getting
the facts I'm not going with Limbaugh. I will take the expert's advice
over his any day of the week. I'd recommend that to everyone but I
realize no right winger will ever take that advice.

Hawke

But you are now talking about what might be termed "blue collar
wisdom", that gained from doing something and observing the results.
The caddie, for example, doesn't calculate the swing velocity, mass of
the club head and drag coefficient of the ball to know that it isn't a
7 iron shot to the green from here.

On the other hand we have the collage educated whom frequently are of
little use when they leave school. I suggest that a short session with
a fresh, green, engineer graduate will be educational with his
requests to drill a 2 in deep hole with a #60 drill, or produces a
drawing calling out +0, -.001 and 1 " of true angle and class 3
threads and when asked if he can lighten up a bit replies "Aren't
those standard tolerances ?"

This is certainly not a condemnation of a collage education, rather it
is a condemnation of the thought process that insists that a collage
education somehow always produces an intelligent individual.



All of us who have gone to college and gotten a degree know very well
that everyone who has a degree isn't a genius. We all know people we
went to school with who are idiots. So college graduates know well a
degree doesn't guarantee anything.

In my experience that is, perhaps not total, but certainly a
significant amount of B.S. From my own prospective I have actually
hear an individual state that "I went to collage and you have only a 4
year education". Later events demonstrated that the implied advantage
was not quite correct as the 4 year guy went on to be a
multi-millionaire while the guy with the collage education now is
supported by his wife.

Or, have you ever been around any consulting projects, say USAID,
W.B., UN? Every one of them demand a collage degree but rarely do they
demand experience in the actual project requirements. I've seen a
bloke with a Doctorate in "Library Sciences" work for years on
various projects such as transmigration, cross cultural training and
work of that type without a clue about the work. We had a project that
initialed certifying how much jungle was cleared in support of a
transmigration project. Towe blokes with Master's degrees were made
Project manager and assistant. When it came time to certify the first
month's clearance they didn't know how, didn't have a clue. And these
people's resumes were submitted and accepted as part of our original
tender.


We also hear the uneducated chiming in on how stupid people they know
with degrees are. But then the uneducated are always telling us how
getting a college degree is not very important. We hear words from them
like, we never got no degree and we done just fine, from them all the time.

Not from me. I haven't said a word about the worth of a degree. After
all I got one myself. But I sometimes shudder to remember how much I
thought I knew as apposed to how little I actually knew when I
graduated.

But that's not really the point. I'm talking about who one chooses to
listen to or take advice from. My view is that when you want to know the
truth about something or the facts you go to someone who is an expert, a
professional, someone who has a credential, someone who actually knows
what they are talking about. You don't go to a layman, the common man,
or the man in the street. That's my view.


You are not saying what you originally said. If I remember correctly
you referenced a collage graduate as an expert and this was what I was
protesting about.

I agree with you with the exception that the degree does not always,
in fact I suspect rather infrequently, means that one is an expert. To
use your own analogy who would you prefer tell you what club you
should use for this shot? The 8th grade caddy or the non-golfer with
the degree in aerodynamics?

In fact I suspect that knowledge depends more on an individual's
desire to learn rather than a diploma. Henry Ford was apprentice
machinist, not a degreed engineer; Walter Chrisler was a machinist,
Neither of the two originators of APPLE had degrees; Bill Gates was a
collage drop-out; Samuel Colt was indentured to a farm.


Relating that to Limbaugh is simple. He is the ordinary man, the
uneducated, the layman. I'm not being negative. I'm simply describing
him accurately. There is simply no area in which Limbaugh has any
specific expertise beyond what any ordinary person has.


I didn't even know who Limbaugh is but looked him up on the Wiki and
apparently he is some sort of talk show MC. Which hardly qualifies him
for anything.

According to my view of going to professionals, experts, or the
educated, that lets out Limbaugh. But that's my way of doing things.
Clearly, lots of people don't do it my way. Instead they take the word
of someone who has no particular training or expertise on just about any
subject. I'm saying I think that is a stupid way of doing things and
that the people who do that are themselves stupid. That's how it looks
to me.

Hawke

I can only agree that people seem to have a penchant for listening to
those who say what they want to hear. Obama's school history is a
perfect example - the "Moslem School" that he attended. The name of
the school, which has been published, translates to "National School
Number 4". In fact the school's name, Sekolah Dasar Negeri 04, is
indicative of a non-religious school as a Moslem religious school
would be refereed to as a "Madressa", not a "Sekolah".

But people hear what they want to hear.


--
John B.