1. Is the 'expert' and expert in the area being discussed? I don't trust a mathematician to talk about business management without further evidence of expertise in that area.
2. Does the area being discussed have a way to gain and test knowledge? Can the expert actually know what is claimed? Does the subject area have means to learn about the subject and actually have knowledge? Theology, for example, fails here miserably.
3. Are the standards for the knowledge exacting? If you use p<.05 for your standard of relevance, then 1 in 20 results will be false positives. Using p<.0001 reduces that risk. Medical and psychological studies run into issues with this.
4. Is there a consensus in the subject area? How much debate has been done? How much evidence considered? And how many alternative views have been considered? Why were they dismissed?
5. Does the expert agree with the other experts in that field of study? if not, why not?
2. Does the area being discussed have a way to gain and test knowledge? Can the expert actually know what is claimed? Does the subject area have means to learn about the subject and actually have knowledge? Theology, for example, fails here miserably.
3. Are the standards for the knowledge exacting? If you use p<.05 for your standard of relevance, then 1 in 20 results will be false positives. Using p<.0001 reduces that risk. Medical and psychological studies run into issues with this.
4. Is there a consensus in the subject area? How much debate has been done? How much evidence considered? And how many alternative views have been considered? Why were they dismissed?
5. Does the expert agree with the other experts in that field of study? if not, why not?
