> all the participants are "experts" in their respective
> fields...that is they have oodles of credentials, awards, and
> experience. How is one expert to beleived and another one not?
> Why or why not is one Ph.d more credible than another.
I think critical thinking is the key. If an expert claims something,
we have to evaluate his claims from the evidence he presents, what we
know, and how well he can argue his case. Credentials doesn't really
matter, there are plenty of Ph.Ds around and anybody can be named an
expert. A nice overview of standards to apply when evaluating
thinking can be found at
http://loki.sonoma.edu/cthink/University/univlibrary/unistan.nclk
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Anders Sandberg Towards Ascension!
nv91-asa@nada.kth.se http://www.nada.kth.se/~nv91-asa/main.html
GCS/M/S/O d++ -p+ c++++ !l u+ e++ m++ s+/+ n--- h+/* f+ g+ w++ t+ r+ !y