I wonder if it would be better to re-name that one. Maybe "Customer" or "Homeowner" instead of "Consumer". I have always had a problem with that moniker unless I am eating something. Sincerely, Monica. I mean, Peter.

Reply to post by Peter Torres, on December 05, 1998 at 23:37:38:

Is that better?

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on December 05, 1998 at 23:37:38:

Excellent choice, russ. Peter

Reply to post by Peter Torres, on December 06, 1998 at 02:36:32:

I hope all you "pros" who visit here will stop by that section from time to time, and help out with any questions that pop up (it has been a bit slow, though).

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on December 06, 1998 at 22:10:34:

How many of "us" truly believe we are experts.

Mac

Reply to post by Ian McDermott, on December 06, 1998 at 23:17:56:

What is an expert?

Reply to post by Scott, on December 07, 1998 at 15:22:35:

Scott,
that depends on what the definition of is, is!
lew

Reply to post by Scott, on December 07, 1998 at 15:22:35:

Hi Guys:
Two Opinions here:
#1.In regards to the consumer ststement,In my
case there are three types of people I deal with
potential clients,clients as!+%%&^es.
#2. in regards to "What is an expert?"I feel
an expert is a person with enough knowledge to
either answer a question ,related to his or her
field,immediatly or have the ability to go find
an answer.If an person runs into a problem that
they can't handle,the "expert" would pass on that
situation and recommend someone else with more
expertise.Nobody knows everything,although some
think they do.Just my opinion.
Thanks,Bill

Reply to post by lewbloch, on December 07, 1998 at 16:28:39:

Well Lew, I know you're an expert but I don't think we can use you as the definition, just an example. Well not 'just,' but you know what I mean.

As to 'is,' I'm not sure but I think it's the opposite of isn't.

Reply to post by Ian McDermott, on December 06, 1998 at 23:17:56:

WE each think we are experts, Ian. The question really should be, does anyone else think we are experts.....

Reply to post by Scott, on December 07, 1998 at 15:22:35:

x is the unknown, and a spurt is a drip under pressure.

Julian Dunster

Reply to post by Scott, on December 07, 1998 at 15:22:35:

Scott, An "Ex" = has been and a "spert" = a drip!

Any questions?

Steve

Reply to post by Julian Dunster, on December 07, 1998 at 16:28:39:

Julian, someone once said great minds think alike! Either that or we both know the same jokes.

I was posting my response at the same time you posted yours, and met a slight delay.

Steve

Reply to post by Julian Dunster, on December 07, 1998 at 16:28:39:

Now I understand. You mean under pressure like A) on the witness stand in a tough cross-examination or B) 'we need the report yesterday.' That's quite descriptive.

Reply to post by Scott, on December 07, 1998 at 15:22:35:

'Courwse, there's the other definition:
Anyone with a brief case, more than 100 miles from home.

Reply to post by Russ Carlson, on December 07, 1998 at 16:28:39:

Or what you were during that gap on your resume between salaried positions.

I'm glad to see we're having some fun w/this but I suspect Ian was asking a serious question. I think Bill Camper, 12/7 (38) #2 gave a pretty good description of an expert. Any serious comments?

Reply to post by Scott, on December 09, 1998 at 00:16:49:

I think we must be a little careful- we are all now getting in the habit of defining our terms quite precisely. That is usually good, when talking on the technical side. The terms "expert" is more of a generalization, however. It connotes a specialist with more than a general knowledge of a subject; one who by education and/or experience is more highly trained on an issue than most people. Let's not try to pin this one down to closely.

Reply to post by Scott, on December 09, 1998 at 00:16:49:

Scott

An island of sanity in the sea of weirdness. As your posting suggested I was not really seeking a dictionary definition of the word "Expert" - I own a dictionary already.

What was being suggested was that anyone who regards him/herself as an expert in a scantily researched field such as Arboriculture is either a fool or a braggart (Oh I am going to get some hate mail now). Perhaps more of a reliance on what you see, tempered with what you know and not what you think you are, would get us all closer to the problem and away from the personal.

Russ - what do you think of a new board for your site "Egotism in Arboriculture" a place where time has no real meaning!

Mac

Reply to post by Stephen Wiley, on December 07, 1998 at 16:28:39:

I was waiting to see that

A has been drip under extreem pressure..

Reply to post by Scott, on December 09, 1998 at 00:16:49:

Russ (54) and Ian (55) both make reasonable points. There really is not a precise, inclusive or exclusive definition of "expert." It's not just that it's a subjective label, it has a lot to do with context. In the US, the Federal Rules of Evidence (I'll find the citation if anybody really wants it) define an expert as anyone who by virtue of special training, knowledge or experience can help the court understand facts (pretty much what Russ said). It does not require any particular educational achievement or certification. It does not require omniscience in a field (even if it were possible). (Though Sam Hand tells me there are more stringent requirements in FL.)

So in a consumer context, more people would qualify as experts than in a research or litigation context. So maybe it should go back to 'consumer questions.'

Experts do have an ethical responsibility to recognize the limits of their expertise and not take advantage of the ignorance of those who ask for their expertise. The problem is 'you don't know what it is you don't know.' So supposed experts may propose some pretty shaky stuff. That's why I suggested in one of the value threads that we become accustomed to giving supportable opinions, not simply personal ones.

Scott

Reply to post by Scott, on December 09, 1998 at 10:02:41:

FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE

ARTICLE VII. OPINIONS AND EXPERT TESTIMONY

RULE 702. TESTIMONY BY EXPERTS

"If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/overview.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/evidence.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/evidence.html


The Federal Rules of Evidence ("FRE") are almost identical to the Uniform Rules of Evidence which have ben adopted by many states.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uniform/evidence.html