Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
With readily available information, commonality freely share their opinions and assessments about various subjects on internet. However, the statement is suggesting a layperson's critical judgment of work has little or no value. Furthermore, the statement intimates that a valuable critical judgment come from a field expert. Although the statement might offend pseud-experts, a truly valuable judgment can only come from an expert because only the expert has the true understanding on the subject.
Using internet, people can find tons of information on any subjects that exist. If a person types quantum mechanics on Google search, a child will faces with astronomical amount of information, which includes the latest studies on quantum mechanics. Since there are various explanations and analogies, one can possible develop some understanding about quantum mechanics. Furthermore, with the understanding, one can comment about quantum mechanics, but the comment will mostly be flawed for several reasons.
Unlike experts, commonalities cannot examine the found-information and verify its validity. Therefore, commonalities can be easily misinformed. The best example would be Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a common website, which people look for information, but not all information in Wikipedia can be accepted as valid information. The problem of validity applies to the majority of internet websites. Therefore, the judgment can very be based on a false information.
Further examining the above example, even if the person was able to somehow filter out the false information and have a correct understanding, a problem still exists. The problem is the depth of understanding. Quantum mechanics is a complicated subject. In order to explain such a complex concept to the public, experts usually use a simple analogy to facilitate the understanding. However, the simple analogy cannot explain details and exact nuances involved in the complicated subject. Hence, even with the veracious information, the normal person's understanding is still not complete and can be flawed. With a shallow understanding, a truly valuable judgment cannot be developed.
However, an outside view can be valuable to experts occasionally. Sometimes, experts are confined in a set of established knowledge that it is almost impossible to think outside of the box. In such a case, an outrageous idea from outside can help experts to think outside the box. Nevertheless, in order to have any value, the outside view must be carefully examined by the experts first. Also, while the experts are re-evaluating, the idea might not have the exact same meaning as the original.
With internet, anyone can learn about various subjects and freely share the view and understanding of subjects. However, such comments have little or no value to the field. In order to make a true contribution to the field, judgments should be came out from experts or examined by the experts. The judgment made by others are only a cover of a book.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for the position you take. In developing and supporting your position, you should consider ways in which the statement might or might not hold true and explain how these considerations shape your position.
With readily available information, commonality freely share their opinions and assessments about various subjects on internet. However, the statement is suggesting a layperson's critical judgment of work has little or no value. Furthermore, the statement intimates that a valuable critical judgment come from a field expert. Although the statement might offend pseud-experts, a truly valuable judgment can only come from an expert because only the expert has the true understanding on the subject.
Using internet, people can find tons of information on any subjects that exist. If a person types quantum mechanics on Google search, a child will faces with astronomical amount of information, which includes the latest studies on quantum mechanics. Since there are various explanations and analogies, one can possible develop some understanding about quantum mechanics. Furthermore, with the understanding, one can comment about quantum mechanics, but the comment will mostly be flawed for several reasons.
Unlike experts, commonalities cannot examine the found-information and verify its validity. Therefore, commonalities can be easily misinformed. The best example would be Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a common website, which people look for information, but not all information in Wikipedia can be accepted as valid information. The problem of validity applies to the majority of internet websites. Therefore, the judgment can very be based on a false information.
Further examining the above example, even if the person was able to somehow filter out the false information and have a correct understanding, a problem still exists. The problem is the depth of understanding. Quantum mechanics is a complicated subject. In order to explain such a complex concept to the public, experts usually use a simple analogy to facilitate the understanding. However, the simple analogy cannot explain details and exact nuances involved in the complicated subject. Hence, even with the veracious information, the normal person's understanding is still not complete and can be flawed. With a shallow understanding, a truly valuable judgment cannot be developed.
However, an outside view can be valuable to experts occasionally. Sometimes, experts are confined in a set of established knowledge that it is almost impossible to think outside of the box. In such a case, an outrageous idea from outside can help experts to think outside the box. Nevertheless, in order to have any value, the outside view must be carefully examined by the experts first. Also, while the experts are re-evaluating, the idea might not have the exact same meaning as the original.
With internet, anyone can learn about various subjects and freely share the view and understanding of subjects. However, such comments have little or no value to the field. In order to make a true contribution to the field, judgments should be came out from experts or examined by the experts. The judgment made by others are only a cover of a book.
