Qualifications for Science Advisers

[Fredrik]

It means a certain amount of training or education is generally necessary to judge if someone else knows what they are talking about in technical subjects. I frankly don't understand why you interpreted this the way you did.

OK, I apologize for misinterpreting you. So you were asking if the reason I'm able to tell which posters are making sense is that I do have an education. Yes, my knowledge of mathematics and physics certainly helps a lot, and I realize that it might not be so easy for e.g. a high school student.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

OK, I apologize for misinterpreting you. So you were asking if the reason I'm able to tell which posters are making sense is that I do have an education. Yes, my knowledge of mathematics and physics certainly helps a lot, and I realize that it might not be so easy for e.g. a high school student.

Yes. That's exactly what I meant.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Someone not familiar with the field might not know if something is dubious. Moreover, its not realistic for a specialist to cite every fact he or she might say (and it's not done). I don't see why this is controversial. You don't have to give personal information if you don't choose to, but you don't have to be an SA either. Most people use usernames anyway. It's unlikely that revealing you have a PhD on your public page will cause you to be identified. These are just my opinions as a user. Obviously PF will operate as PF management wishes.

If someone doesn't understand an answer they don't understand an answer, the fact that the person who said it claims to have a PhD is irrelevant. Other points to consider are that if the person's PhD is irrelevant to the field the opposite may be true (i.e. a new user will dismiss the comment out of hand) and that anyone can simply make up their qualification.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

If someone doesn't understand an answer they don't understand an answer, the fact that the person who said it claims to have a PhD is irrelevant. Other points to consider are that if the person's PhD is irrelevant to the field the opposite may be true (i.e. a new user will dismiss the comment out of hand) and that anyone can simply make up their qualification.

Like I said, you have your opinion. I have mine. PF wouldn't have stickies inviting people to post their qualifications if someone in authority didn't think it was relevant.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Like I said, you have your opinion. I have mine. PF wouldn't have stickies inviting people to post their qualifications if someone in authority didn't think it was relevant.

True but those are optional, I don't think lack of posted qualifications by SAs is a problem and I don't think the site would be improved by changing that.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

True but those are optional, I don't think lack of posted qualifications by SAs is a problem and I don't think the site would be improved by changing that.

I guess we're back to where we started so let's agree to disagree.

 

[dlgoff]

I think we've beaten this to death.

To repeat a cliché:

Lock this Puppy.

 

[jhae2.718]

http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/00000/1000/500/1516/1516.strip.gif

 

[Evo]

Like I said, you have your opinion. I have mine. PF wouldn't have stickies inviting people to post their qualifications if someone in authority didn't think it was relevant.

The sticky in Biology was one mentor's curiosity about the people that were posting since she was a biologist. I had forgotten that was even there. It definitely is not meant to determine anything as far as posting quality goes, so if that is what you believe, that is wrong.

For some reason, you seem to refuse to believe what we are telling you about how SAs are selected. There is nothing else to say.

And this thread is closed.