-----Original Message----- From: Ray Saintonge [mailto:saintonge@telus.net] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 05:44 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium
I agree in general, but deference to lawyers continues. "IANAL" appears far more frequently that any similar phrase for other professions.
Ec
And well it should. Listening to someone give legal advice that doesn't know squat is very painful. A good lawyer knows you have to be familiar with the facts and research the law before you start in with the advice, and even then it is likely to be wrong unless a judge agrees.
Fred
On 1/19/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Ray Saintonge [mailto:saintonge@telus.net] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 05:44 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium
I agree in general, but deference to lawyers continues. "IANAL" appears far more frequently that any similar phrase for other professions.
Ec
And well it should. Listening to someone give legal advice that doesn't know squat is very painful. A good lawyer knows you have to be familiar with the facts and research the law before you start in with the advice, and even then it is likely to be wrong unless a judge agrees.
Fred
Problem is that applies to almost any given subject. People do no say "I am not a chemist" even though I can probably find an exception to almost any stamtent about chemisty made by someone without a degree.
On 1/18/07, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/19/07, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Ray Saintonge [mailto:saintonge@telus.net] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2007 05:44 PM To: 'English Wikipedia' Subject: Re: [WikiEN-l] Troubling news on Citizendium
I agree in general, but deference to lawyers continues. "IANAL" appears far more frequently that any similar phrase for other professions.
Ec
And well it should. Listening to someone give legal advice that doesn't know squat is very painful. A good lawyer knows you have to be familiar with the facts and research the law before you start in with the advice, and even then it is likely to be wrong unless a judge agrees.
Fred
Problem is that applies to almost any given subject. People do no say "I am not a chemist" even though I can probably find an exception to almost any stamtent about chemisty made by someone without a degree.
This is a question of whether we're talking about WP articles ON the law, in which case the "are you an attorney or not?" question doesn't really matter much, or talking about how the law affects WP, in which case the question is much more significant and less academic...
I don't mind if Fred edits an article on heart surgery, but if I need a bypass, with all due respect to Fred, I want someone who does them for a living 8-)
Problem is that applies to almost any given subject. People do no say "I am not a chemist" even though I can probably find an exception to almost any stamtent about chemisty made by someone without a degree.
Try listening to secondary (high) school Chemistry teachers... they have degrees and still teach complete rubbish most of the time. I can understand teaching things slightly simplified, but teaching something which is actually outright wrong in the name of simplicity is just crazy.
On 1/19/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Problem is that applies to almost any given subject. People do no say "I am not a chemist" even though I can probably find an exception to almost any stamtent about chemisty made by someone without a degree.
Try listening to secondary (high) school Chemistry teachers... they have degrees and still teach complete rubbish most of the time. I can understand teaching things slightly simplified, but teaching something which is actually outright wrong in the name of simplicity is just crazy.
A good lawyer is only as good as their ability or inclination to stay
abreast of current precedent. The same goes for any teacher or "expert". They can't rest on their credentials and expect to know what they're talking about.
Ultimately, that's the problem I have. At least in America, we have an "expert" beauracracy set up that rewards past effort while failing to acknowledge that any "expert" needs to be a life-long learner. A lot "experts" wouldn't last a day in the private sector, because they simply wouldn't have competitive knowledge.
Nina
On 1/19/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Problem is that applies to almost any given subject. People do no say "I am not a chemist" even though I can probably find an exception to almost any stamtent about chemisty made by someone without a degree.
Try listening to secondary (high) school Chemistry teachers... they have degrees and still teach complete rubbish most of the time. I can understand teaching things slightly simplified, but teaching something which is actually outright wrong in the name of simplicity is just crazy.
Which set of chemistry teachings did you have in mind?
Which set of chemistry teachings did you have in mind?
For example, I discovered a few days ago, talking to some friends of mine studying Chemistry at uni, that diatomic oxygen is, in fact, not double bonded, as my Chemistry teachers said it was.
I can understand the reason for the simplification, but they should at least say they are simplifying things.
On 1/26/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Which set of chemistry teachings did you have in mind?
For example, I discovered a few days ago, talking to some friends of mine studying Chemistry at uni, that diatomic oxygen is, in fact, not double bonded, as my Chemistry teachers said it was.
I can understand the reason for the simplification, but they should at least say they are simplifying things.
Anything that isn't the full quantum-mechanical electron orbitals analysis of the chemical structure is oversimplification, but "works" for 99.9% of the chemistry that anyone ever does.
We still teach people Newtonian physics first, then Relativity if you reach college and take science major / engineering major level physics courses. Almost nobody remembers the fully relativistic versions of the equations of motion, because you essentially have to be a particle physicist or high energy physicist or cosmologist for it to matter.
The simplifications aren't wrong. And it's not wrong to teach them to people. It's wrong to not tell people that there is a more precise underlying theory, but I don't generally run into physics or chemistry teachers at any level who don't make that distinction.
On 1/19/07, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
Problem is that applies to almost any given subject. People do no say "I am not a chemist" even though I can probably find an exception to almost any stamtent about chemisty made by someone without a degree.
Try listening to secondary (high) school Chemistry teachers... they have degrees and still teach complete rubbish most of the time. I can understand teaching things slightly simplified, but teaching something which is actually outright wrong in the name of simplicity is just crazy.
Actually, teachers often teach what they believe to be correct. Most people forget as much as they remember of their undergraduate classes - when they set out to teach they go with what the textbook says. And even then, they may have misconceptions.
Chemistry teachers (at least in the US) are likely to be science education majors rather than chemistry majors. And even chemistry majors don't know whole swathes of the subject matter...they took the classes that they were required to take for the major. They probably had very few forays into the primary literature, and don't really understand how their science works.
geni wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Ray Saintonge [mailto:saintonge@telus.net] I agree in general, but deference to lawyers continues. "IANAL" appears far more frequently that any similar phrase for other professions.
[snip]
Problem is that applies to almost any given subject. People do no say "I am not a chemist" even though I can probably find an exception to almost any stamtent about chemisty made by someone without a degree.
I think they're more likely to say "Don't try this at home, kids."
It's all about covering your ass, really.
Ilmari Karonen wrote:
geni wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: Ray Saintonge [mailto:saintonge@telus.net] I agree in general, but deference to lawyers continues. "IANAL" appears far more frequently that any similar phrase for other professions.
[snip]
Problem is that applies to almost any given subject. People do no say "I am not a chemist" even though I can probably find an exception to almost any stamtent about chemisty made by someone without a degree.
I think they're more likely to say "Don't try this at home, kids."
It's all about covering your ass, really.
Yep, and as long as you spend time looking at your own backside is as long as you don't look forward to new ideas.
Ec
Fred Bauder wrote:
From: Ray Saintonge
I agree in general, but deference to lawyers continues. "IANAL" appears far more frequently that any similar phrase for other professions.
And well it should. Listening to someone give legal advice that doesn't know squat is very painful. A good lawyer knows you have to be familiar with the facts and research the law before you start in with the advice, and even then it is likely to be wrong unless a judge agrees.
That a good lawyer knows about facts and research does not logically imply that a person who is not a lawyer doesn't. That the lawyer is likely to be wrong before a judge (who is himself a lawyer) does nothing to build confidence in lawyers.
Listening to poor advice is indeed painful, but that experience is not limited to law. Law does not begin and end with the statutes. For every statutory provision there are people willing to give multiple interpretations where you would not expect them, and precedents often appear contradictory. I believe that people have to accept the direct consequences of their actions, and ignorance of those consequences is no excuse. It also comes down to a matter of risk tolerance, and I find most people to be not risk tolerant at all.
Ec