Backing Up Claims of Personal Expertise

[Danmark]

Tho' it may not be set out explicitly, I understand there is an understandable prohibition about demanding personal information. Privacy here should certainly be protected.

However, when a member tries to add authority to his argument by claiming special expertise in a subject, or cites his personal credentials, college degrees, for example, has he not 'opened the door' by claiming such expertise?

That is, if he claims that his opinion should be respected because of his personal background, isn't it reasonable to expect him to back up his claim when challenged by giving his curriculum vitae? His CV would not have to include his true name, but perhaps the educational institutions he's graduated from and other distinctions he may have earned.

Frankly, IMNSHO it is bad form to claim form to claim personal expertise to bolster one's argument, just as it is bad form to claim one is 'smarter' or 'better educated' than another. One's use of language and the power of the argument itself should be sufficient credential.

BUT, if one does claim special expertise, he should be able to support such a claim, or withdraw it.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

My position is that where one makes a claim, that claim should be liable to challenge.

Where one makes a declaration that they personally hold this or that degree, and especially where said degree is directly related to the topic at hand, it is not unreasonable to attempt to confirm the veracity of that claim.


I consider several outcomes related to the challenge of such a claim...

1- The claimant presents their credentials.

2- The claimant retracts.

3- The claimant says he's not willing to divulge personal information.

4- The claimant hems and haws, and we ain't no closer to the truth than when we sat down.

In all these instances, the decision is up to the claimant, and the observer has gleaned that much more data in order to come to conclusions regarding the claimant's credibility.


If one is allowed to declare themselves an expert in a topic they seek to discuss, and we ain't even allowed to challenge that claim, who's to stop anyone from making any claim they want, and then just declaring any challenge to be an infringement on their personal privacy?


I can see it now... I'm fixing to have me more college degrees'n there is paper to print 'em on.

[WinePusher]

However, when a member tries to add authority to his argument by claiming special expertise in a subject, or cites his personal credentials, college degrees, for example, has he not 'opened the door' by claiming such expertise?

First of all, Nickman asked me specifically 'What credibility to I have' regarding the issue of Glass Steagall and the banking system. So, I told him. I have an undergraduate and graduate education in Economics and will be pursuing doctoral studies in Economics next year.

Second of all, I never said you or anyone else had to believe me. This is an INTERNET FORUM. What don't you understand about that? I couldn't care less what some random person over the internet thinks or believes. I was asked a question and gave my answer.

Third of all, why did you put me on your ignore list if you're going to continually read what I write AND then proceed to make new threads dedicated to my statements? I believe this is a psychological disorder, yes?

That is, if he claims that his opinion should be respected because of his personal background, isn't it reasonable to expect him to back up his claim when challenged by giving his curriculum vitae? His CV would not have to include his true name, but perhaps the educational institutions he's graduated from and other distinctions he may have earned.

I haven't made a CV yet, but I probably should. I do have a resume, but I definitely am not putting that up on the internet. Have you never taken a safe environment class before? Do you have any children? Would you tell your children to put their grades and school reports on the internet for rapists, serial killers, child molesters and people who contemplate incest to see?

But I find your obsession with me quite fascinating. First you stalk my post history and NOW you want to see my resume and the institutions I've graduate from. This is abnormal, stalker behavior.

One's use of language and the power of the argument itself should be sufficient credential.

I agree. I think it's bad form and extremely pathetic when somebody purposefully misspells words for the sake of being 'cute' and 'unique.'

BUT, if one does claim special expertise, he should be able to support such a claim, or withdraw it.

I wasn't claiming anything. I was answering a question. If you're butt hurt about my answer, well I don't know what to tell you. Grow a thicker skin because it's the internet and you shouldn't be abnormally obsessing about random people over the internet. It's not healthy.

[otseng]

However, when a member tries to add authority to his argument by claiming special expertise in a subject, or cites his personal credentials, college degrees, for example, has he not 'opened the door' by claiming such expertise?

First of all, Nickman asked me specifically 'What credibility to I have' regarding the issue of Glass Steagall and the banking system. So, I told him. I have an undergraduate and graduate education in Economics and will be pursuing doctoral studies in Economics next year.

Yes, Nickman was the one who asked, so certainly Winepusher has the right to answer that. And no, he does not need to provide private information about himself.

I believe this is a psychological disorder, yes?

Saying someone has a psychological disorder would be a personal attack.

This is abnormal, stalker behavior.

People on the forum can read and respond to any other poster at their own discretion. This is not abnormal or stalking behavior.

[Danmark]

However, when a member tries to add authority to his argument by claiming special expertise in a subject, or cites his personal credentials, college degrees, for example, has he not 'opened the door' by claiming such expertise?

First of all, Nickman asked me specifically 'What credibility to I have' regarding the issue of Glass Steagall and the banking system. So, I told him. I have an undergraduate and graduate education in Economics and will be pursuing doctoral studies in Economics next year.

Second of all, I never said you or anyone else had to believe me. This is an INTERNET FORUM. What don't you understand about that? I couldn't care less what some random person over the internet thinks or believes. I was asked a question and gave my answer.

Third of all, why did you put me on your ignore list if you're going to continually read what I write AND then proceed to make new threads dedicated to my statements? I believe this is a psychological disorder, yes?

That is, if he claims that his opinion should be respected because of his personal background, isn't it reasonable to expect him to back up his claim when challenged by giving his curriculum vitae? His CV would not have to include his true name, but perhaps the educational institutions he's graduated from and other distinctions he may have earned.

I haven't made a CV yet, but I probably should. I do have a resume, but I definitely am not putting that up on the internet. Have you never taken a safe environment class before? Do you have any children? Would you tell your children to put their grades and school reports on the internet for rapists, serial killers, child molesters and people who contemplate incest to see?

But I find your obsession with me quite fascinating. First you stalk my post history and NOW you want to see my resume and the institutions I've graduate from. This is abnormal, stalker behavior.

One's use of language and the power of the argument itself should be sufficient credential.

I agree. I think it's bad form and extremely pathetic when somebody purposefully misspells words for the sake of being 'cute' and 'unique.'

BUT, if one does claim special expertise, he should be able to support such a claim, or withdraw it.

I wasn't claiming anything. I was answering a question. If you're butt hurt about my answer, well I don't know what to tell you. Grow a thicker skin because it's the internet and you shouldn't be abnormally obsessing about random people over the internet. It's not healthy.

With over 9000 members on this forum, you suggest this subtopic is all about you. Who needs to grow thicker skin? I'm not sure if you are complaining about being ignored, or not being ignored. At any rate, you assume facts not in evidence, thus your argument is a not valid.

Don't you agree that when one uses his personal credentials to buttress his argument, that he has made those personal credentials an issue? At any rate, don't you agree this is a valid question to discuss in Comments, Suggestions, and Questions?

[WinePusher]

With over 9000 members on this forum, you suggest this subtopic is all about you.

Yes. First of all, you've been stalking my posts in the Glass Steagall thread. Second of all, you create this topic the very same day it came up in the Glass Steagall thread.

But don't take it the wrong way, I am both flattered and creeped out that you take such an interest in my posts.

Who needs to grow thicker skin?

You? Aren't you the one getting all upset cause I answered a simple question about my educational background?

I'm not sure if you are complaining about being
ignored, or not being ignored.

I'm not complaining. I don't care what you do. I am merely pointing out an example of cognitive dissonance. You say you're going to ignore me and you put me on your ignore list, yet you still continue to read and analyze my posts.

Don't you agree that when one uses his personal credentials to buttress his argument, that he has made those personal credentials an issue? At any rate, don't you agree this is a valid question to discuss in Comments, Suggestions, and Questions?

Both myself and otseng already addressed this concern. If you want to debate on this site you should take the time and effort to read what the other person writes.

I was answering a question. Besides, I remember when I was debating you about Trayvon Martin, you kept bringing up your so called 'personal credentials' to 'buttress your argument.' And now you're complaining about it? You're complaining about a tactic that you yourself engaged in. Good job!

Hypocrisy:

1.
a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess.

2.
a pretense of having some desirable or publicly approved attitude.

3.
an act or instance of hypocrisy. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hypocrisy

[otseng]

OK, that's enough bickering. If anyone has any more issues with the issue of personal credentials, PM me.