Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
role of expert opinion in search a knowledge
role of expert opinion in search a knowledge
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: role of expert opinion in search a knowledge
Throughout recorded history, societies and populations across the world have relied on individuals regarded as ‘experts’ and their valued opinions to provide insight and clarification to aid the search for knowledge. This essay will assess the importance of opinions by people deemed to have a certain expertise in terms of the search for knowledge. In the question ‘how important are the opinions of experts in the search for knowledge?’ the terms ‘opinion’, ‘expert’ and ‘knowledge’ are fundamental, and thus repeatedly feature in the body of this essay. For the purpose of this essay, the following terms have been defined according this knower’s understanding of them: An ‘opinion’ is an individual’s perspective towards a certain issue or topic. An ‘expert’ is an individual that is professionally qualified in a certain field, and/or has a level of advanced knowledge or experience in that particular field that is highly specialised. ‘Knowledge’ is the acquisition of information, grounded in a certain specialised area of knowledge. As I am writing this essay, the crisis in Libya is unfolding before us. Yet, due to restrictions on foreign media, news providers like CNN have been unable to enter Libya to provide us with on-the-ground reports, therefore, we as an international audience are limited in our search for knowledge in regards to Libya as expert news providers are not present. At the moment, CNN is relying on ordinary Libyan citizens to provide amateur footage and first hand accounts of the crisis, however, questions could be raised as to whether these ‘ordinary’ citizens can be recognized to be ‘experts’, particularly since their information is being broadcasted to the world. Given the restrictions in Libya, these ‘ordinary’ c... ... middle of paper ... ...for knowledge to a certain extent. Implications of the evidence suggest that not all experts facilitate the search for knowledge, and some experts, like Professor Rohan Gunaratna may limit or distort the search for knowledge. Furthermore, It must be assumed that experts, who are deemed to be beneficial in the search for knowledge, base their opinions on information that is accurate and reliable. This knower feels that the number of experts in society that facilitate the search for knowledge considerably outweigh those few experts that hinder the search for knowledge, and therefore, it can be concluded that the opinions of experts are important in the search for knowledge, especially in highly specialised fields. Bibliography The Age. (2003). Analyse this. Available: www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/20/1058545648013.html Last accessed 24th February 2011
Many people have no interest in current events in the world or even their own country, and are more concerned about matters that are more trivial, and even if they were to pay a deal of attention, common news sources are often biased and don’t release information that would hurt a certain cause. It is in this way that the citizens are kept igno...
Information is everywhere now and days. Everything is on google. When we are in pain or need help building something, we can just look it up and everything will be at the palm of our hands. The only time we need experts is when we are in real need of help. This can be a good thing because it just goes to show you how easy it is to learn and gain more knowledge, but it’s also terrible because how much knowledge is necessary until we can call ourselves an “expert.” I think part of the problem lies between those who are open minded and those who are single minded. Some people after doing some research here and there, assume they know it all or there isn’t much else to it and this is the problem why we are losing faith in our “experts.” It is important to get a fuller picture of loss in need of our experts because of how easily information can be accessed. IN order to get a
Piers Robinson: The CNN Effect: The Myth of News, Foreign Policy, and Intervention, (London: Routledge, 2002), pp.7-24.
In “The Death of Expertise” the author, Tom Nichols, expresses his concerns and fears about the ignorant public and their views on experts and the things they are experts in. Nichols states that, in today’s society, a backlash of hate and anger will ensue when the public is faced with an “assertion of expertise.” Nichols argues that people resent the thought of being wrong or different opinions “altering their own thoughts and changing the way they live.” Nichols states that even though everyone has equal rights, not everyone is an equal expert, which the public does not receive well. Nichols voices his worries about the “death of the expert” the bridge that separated the experts from the general public has collapsed and with it the idea that the experts know what they are talking about. The idea Nichols is trying to convey is not the “death of actual expertise,” instead what he fears had died is “any acknowledgement of expertise as anything that should alter our thoughts or change the way we live.” (Nichols, 1) There will always be experts in various fields; however people have stopped listening to them in order to protect their own opinions.
The speaker's contention that generalists are more important than specialists is, in some respect, a reflection of the current problems in our society. Specialists are clearly more preferred for very technical or highly specialized fields but, at the same time, the understanding of what we as human species are and where our evolution or the progress is directed does require much broader perspective.
Knowledge is rarely considered permanent, because it is constantly changing and adapting as time passes and new discoveries are made. This title roughly translates into the question: to what extent is knowledge provisional? In other words, to what extent does knowledge exist for the present, possibly to be changed in the future? At first glance, one’s mind would immediately stray to the natural sciences, and how theories are constantly being challenged, disproven, and discarded. Because of this, one might be under the impression that knowledge is always provisional because there is always room for improvement; however, there are some cases in which this is not true. There are plenty of ideas and theories that have withstood the test of time, but on the other end of the spectrum there are many that have not. This essay will evaluate the extent to which knowledge is provisional in the areas of the human sciences and history.
In this era of globalization, news reporting is no longer just a means of communications, but it has also developed into a tool for change. Prominent journalists like Julian Assange, Nick Davies, Sir Charles Wheeler and many more has changed the landscape and outcomes of information, war and news reporting itself. But Martin Bell has challenged the fundamentals of journalism that is to be balanced and impartial with what he calls ‘Journalism of Attachment’. He even coined the phrase, ‘bystanders’ journalism’ for continuing the tradition of being distant and detached (Bell 1997), which he criticizes “for focusing with the circumstances of violence, such as military formations, weapons, strategies, maneuvers and tactics” (Gilboa 2009, p. 99). Therefore it is the aim of this essay to explain whether it is ethical for reporters to practice what Martin Bell calls the Journalism of Attachment by evaluating its major points and its counterarguments, and assessing other notions of journalism such as peace journalism.
Production of knowledge is generally seen in a positive light. However, when ethics and morality become involved in the process of production, judgements will undoubtedly be made that may seem to limit the availability of that knowledge. Ethical judgements are made by the combination of a knower, his or her standard of value, and the situation itself. In the field of the arts and natural sciences, ethics plays a crucial role in the extent one may possibly be allowed to go when discovering new knowledge. Reason and emotion are important ways of knowing that help guide knowers in making certain moral decisions.
Albert Einstein said, “We shall require a substantially new manner of thinking if mankind is to survive.” This new manner of thinking should be based on pre-existing knowledge. This pre-existing knowledge is necessary because it is the catalyst that pushes the human race forward, making us want to discover more. Trying to discover completely new knowledge would not yield the same results. Basing your research off what you already know allows you to compare the new data that you collected to the old data that is already present. If you discover something new you will have nothing to compare it with. This does not allow you the luxury of seeing if what you discovered was an improvement. This essay will examine how important it is to discover new ways of thinking about prior knowledge than it is to discover new facts. I believe that using prior knowledge to push discovery is much more important than trying to discovers new data or facts.
I have interpreted the key aspect of this essay question as evaluating the extent to which knowledge can be obtained, despite possible problems of bias and selection. First of all I would like to give my own personal definition of bias and selection to make clear my interpretation of what these two words mean. Bias is a tendency to give an opinion that disregards any other possible alternatives. Selection is the process by which one decides what information should be included and what should not. Already by reading these two definitions one can see that they can pose a possible threat in obstructing our acquisition of knowledge. However, we must not discard a source that contains aspects of bias or selection as useless, as is this not a form of gaining knowledge in itself?
In order to be convinced by a statement, I require solid evidence that yields the truth of that statement. Upon speculating how to go about finding this evidence, I examine how the rest of society does so. A vast amount of credit is given toward theories found in the human and natural sciences. Scientists are recognized as authoritative figures with the recent development of inventions, medicine and scientific discoveries in the past century. This poses the question of how science has influenced and shaped the world with the credibility of its theories. This knowledge issue will be studied by analyzing how these two areas of knowledge approach a conclusion, assessing common reasons for high value placement of scientific theories, comparing science to another area of knowledge, and exploring problems with this method of gaining knowledge. I shall attempt to explain why and to what extent scientific theories are convincing to the general world.
This essay will show that ethical considerations do limit the production of knowledge in both art and natural sciences and that such kind of limitations are present to a higher extent in the natural sciences.
My first reaction to this title was to ask myself who, or what, determines what is considered ethical? Then I asked myself whether the subjectivity of ethics creates a bias in the judgment of what is ethical, and if so, how reliable are ethical judgments. After much thought, I realized that my first response to the question was limited. Considering the areas of knowledge and ways of knowing that are involved in the question, I began to think about the nature of the production of knowledge in the arts and the natural sciences and the limits that ethics may impose on this process. In this essay I will be discussing constrains put on the production of knowledge by ethical judgments with particular reference to the arts and the natural sciences as areas of knowledge.
Truth is simply the mind corresponding with reality, knowledge is having the truth and knowing that you have it and understanding why it is true, Opinion is having an hypothesis but not being entirely sure that your idea is true and extreme skepticism is self contradictory because skeptics say that there is truth ¡§that there is no truth¡¨. By doing this they are making a true statement. In this essay we shall discuss a more deeper and in-depth meaning truth, knowledge, opinion and why extreme skepticism is self-contradictory.
Encapsulated in a democratic homeland since the advent of time, media systems are habitually acclaimed as the “fourth power,” with its journalists often hailed as the “watch-dogs” of such a society. Lending itself to act as ‘gatekeeper’ for the wider society and performing the traditional role of journalism, the media (overall) exist as powerful “instruments of knowledge” that perform the function of providing information to the masses in a public sphere, where issues may be discussed, justified and contested (Scannell, 1995, p. 17). Evidently, media workers play a pivotal role in our society; however, their status in the realm of professions is not definite. Although the above emphasize the predicament at the heart of ...