|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Ultracrepidarianism
|
This logic related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information. |
| ||
|
| ||||
Title[edit]
Why are Bill Nye and PZ Myers on this page?— Unsigned, by: 178.208.109.208 / talk / contribs
AND why is Jared Diamond listed without explanation? Pinkerite (talk) 16:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Jared Diamond has been criticized for spreading misinformation about the fate of the Rapa Nui,
and Guns, Germs, and Steel is generally discredited amongst professional anthropologists. But I presume you already know this. Carthage (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
- Specifically with the Rapa Nui, while it's indisputable that there was an ecological collapse occurring after human settlement, there is little evidence of it having substantially affected the human population of Rapa Nui (the island). Rather, all evidence for collapse post-dates Western contact. A [2010 metastudy concludes that there is little conclusive evidence for a social collapse prior to contact:
Leading archaeologists and popular writers have constructed narratives about pre-European societal collapse on Rapa Nui. The island is thought to have undergone a radical prehistoric shift towards anarchy as the island ecosystem was destroyed by overpopulation and environmental catastrophe. Elements of this story were first told by early 20th century ethnographers. In 1955, Thor Heyerdahl’s Norwegian Expedition added to the narrative by recovering archaeological data which they attributed to warfare and destruction. More recent authors have retold the account of prehistoric societal failure, and today Rapa Nui is often depicted as a model for world ecosystem disaster. Despite the popularity of this narrative, there is very little solid evidence that drastic societal change occurred prior to European contact. We review the evidence for pre-European societal collapse, and consider GIS-based methodologies for establishing the dynamic social and environmental landscape to enable the empirical evaluation of whether or not the narrative of Rapa Nui’s prehistoric demise is supported.
Re: speed of light[edit]
The speed of light really isn't the best example now.—127.0.0.1 
(talk • stalk) 23:25, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
- Or maybe this is an example of ultracrepidarianism.¯\_(ツ)_/¯—127.0.0.1
(talk • stalk) 23:32, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Degrees of ultracrepidarianism[edit]
The shoemaker may well be able to recognise 'good or poor workmanship' in other contexts, and 'the scientist' will (or should) have a wider scientific knowledge/know where to look up relevant scientific information, in both cases in a manner in which the 'person in the street' may not. Anna Livia (talk) 17:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
All I know is that I know nothing[edit]
The following quotes consist of individuals recognizing the limits of their knowledge. Viewer discretion is advised.
“”All men have to take most of their opinions upon authority–that is, to believe because others believe; and the reason is often a very good one. [...] In that sense I take my astronomy and nearly all my mathematics upon authority, as well as my belief in Rome or in Julius Caesar. I have not personally investigated the arguments in one case, or the evidence for facts in the other.
|
| —Leslie Stephens, An Agnostic's Apology and Other Essays, page 318 |
“”My name is Rob Hafernik and I'm not an archeologist, I only play one on the Internet. Since I don't have any training in archeology, I'll be careful to document anything I say that relates to archeology back to some expert on the subject or clearly mark it as my own non-expert opinion. I do, however, have a BS degree in Aerospace Engineering (Texas A&M;, 1979) and worked as a government contractor for NASA on the Space Shuttle for three years. So, I'll express my professional opinion to matters relating to orbital dynamics, spaceships and so on.
|
| —"Sitchin's Twelfth Planet" |
“”If I have to do a search on Plato, I have no problem immediately identifying the sites written by madmen, but if I am researching stem cells it's not certain that I can identify the wrong sites.
| ||
| —Umberto Eco |
“”As regards science, especially biology and physiology, I am not competent to criticize his interpretations. But as regards mathematics, he has deliberately preferred traditional errors in interpretation to the more modern views which have prevailed among mathematicians for the last eighty years.
|
| —Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy |
“”Their famous correspondence is said, by a learned German named Schmeidler, to have been entirely composed by Abélard as a literary fiction. I am not competent to judge as to the correctness of this theory, but nothing in Abélard's character makes it impossible.
|
| —Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy |
--Кřěĵ (ṫåɬк) 13:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Silver lining?[edit]
Maybe there's something to be said about how, even if someone isn't an expert at something, they might be able to provide a unique perspective on it from their own expertise that people within that field could benefit from. A doctor may not be a historian, but he might have especial insight into clinical interfacing. So he might comment on what he sees about doctors in history, giving some insight to a historian. The doctor might have some very wrong ideas about how historical research works (and all that), as well as vice versa, but this dialogue could still be productive assuming a non-toxic relationship. So I suppose the main distinction is humbleness and an ability to avoid acting too authoritative. But the more controversial thing I might propose: maybe an ultracrepidarian can contribute something or other (a point here and there) in this sort of way while still being overall incorrect about something. Chillpilled (talk) 16:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)