Is there an educational level needed to be considered an expert?

Certain professions have licensure so to be called a psychologist, an attorney, a podiatrist, and so on you need a level of education and a degree.

I used to think that to be able to legitimately use the title historian, theologian, sociologist, geologist and other such titles you should at least have a PhD in that area. I have noticed more people refer to themselves as a historian (eg) if they have a bachelor's degree in history. Or they will get called a theologian with a master's degree.

I thought I would crowd source this group and see what your general understanding is of the requirements for calling oneself "ian" or "ist" in some area. Should you have a degree at a certain level, any degree at all, or is it enough to have simply research that area significantly on your own?

 

An example of someone who is considered an expert without formal education is Jeffrey Baxter (rock star - Steele Dan, Doobie Brothers). He is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

"Baxter fell into his second profession almost by accident. In the mid-1980s, his interest in music recording technology led him to wonder about hardware and software originally developed for military use, specifically data compression algorithms and large-capacity storage devices.

His next-door neighbor was a retired engineer who had worked on the Sidewinder missile program. This neighbor bought Baxter a subscription to Aviation Week magazine, provoking his interest in additional military-oriented publications and missile defense systems in particular. He became self-taught in this area, and at one point wrote a five-page paper that proposed converting the ship-based anti-aircraft Aegis missile into a rudimentary missile defense system.

He gave the paper to California Republican Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, and his career as a defense consultant began. Baxter received a series of security clearances so he could work with classified information. In 1995, Pennsylvania Republican Congressman Curt Weldon, then the chairman of the House Military Research and Development Subcommittee, nominated Baxter to chair the Civilian Advisory Board for Ballistic Missile Defense.

Baxter's work with that panel led to consulting contracts with the Pentagon's Missile Defense Agency and National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. He consults for the US Department of Defense and the US intelligence community, as well as defense-oriented manufacturers such as Science Applications International Corporation, Northrop Grumman Corp., General Dynamics, and General Atomics Aeronautical Systems Inc. He has said his unconventional approach to thinking about terrorism,tied to his interest in technology, is a major reason the government sought his assistance."

He is also on a NASA advisory committee.

I would think that quite often people get dismissed in those technical fields without a PhD. It is interesting that he managed to establish his credibility.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Baxter#:~:text=Jeffrey Baxter was born in,was a self-described preppie.

 

I would be biased towards what people do--especially professionally--rather than what credentials they hold. (Excepting, of course, where certain credentials are a requirement.)

Two cases: the first, where someone holds a PhD in History but is a financial advisor. The second: someone without a PhD in history, but writes history for a living. I would suggest the latter is a historian while the former is not.

Note that this excludes the concept of expertise. One can have loads of expertise, yet is not doing much with it. I have a PhD with a concentration in Higher Education from Union. I have a certificate in DL from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. I've taught for many universities. But I am not an educator, despite my expertise in the field.

I am a talent developer, and was one long before I had formal credentials related to it. I now have a certificate from the JFK school at Harvard in leadership, a doctorate from the University of Leicester where I studied human resource development, and I hold the Certified Professional in Talent Development (from ATD) and the Professional Certified Coach (from ICF) designations. But all of that came decades after I got started in this field in 1984.

 

You need at least 6 Doctorate degrees to be considered an expert.
Tan Kwan Hong

https://www.linkedin.com/in/tankwanhong/details/education/

 

Expert? Varies by location and endeavor.

The United States in court...

Federal Rules of Evidence

Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses

A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that:

(a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data;

(c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(d) the expert's opinion reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

 

It all depends on the subject matter. I was once certified in court as an expert in determining the proper body fluid temperature of a fresh urine sample with my hand for a violation of probation for not providing a valid urine sample. The court ruled that I had held enough valid urine samples in my hand to determine a deceptive one. Yup... it really happened.

For the record, no college course, military or law enforcement training ever prepared me for that!

 

Interestingly, some programs have the word "expert" in the title. Today, I sent my final assignments for these two programs.

Experto Universitario en Psicología Social
Experto Universitario en Ciencias de la Visión

.

 

Danielle Romero has caught some heat for calling herself a historian without a history degree.

https://youtube.com/@nytn

 

I don't think that there are any universal hard rules on the definition expertise or being an expert. Our civilization is large and complex. There are lots of opportunities for different kinds of knowledge specialists.

Wow, really fun! An expert on urine temperature by feel! I'll guess that someone was trying to substitute someone else's urine for their own urine sample.

That reminds of a sad story I read a few years ago. A man had to go in for a urine test that he knew that he would fail. So his plan was to sneak a urine sample of the young son of his girlfriend into the bathroom in a water bottle. It was too yellow. So he made the young boy drink water to make his urine clearer. Eventually the young boy died from water poisoning.

 

Bill... There are lots of tricks people use to try to submit fraudulent samples as valid samples. Probably even more now-a-days. Hopefully my old employer had the restroom modified to allow for an observer in the room to prevent most if not all deceptions.

 

Expert in Tactile Urinalysis.

 

UCAM course at ESHE? It's next on my list!

 

Yes.

 

Remember the definition of expert, and it aptly fits many. An Ex is a has been, A spert a drip under pressure!

 

An expert is one who knows more and more about less and less. - Nicholas M. Butler

 

Knee-jerk rejection of expertise is often used as a ploy when one does not have an actual argument.

Take climate change. It is irrefutable, but combating it goes against some industrial interests. So, what did climate change opponent James Inhofe do? He brought a snowball into the Senate chamber to argue that scientists didn't know what they were talking about. It's a convenient dodge, one we often see employed on this site by people who cannot argue the facts. It's a close cousin of the ad hominem. Each has the same purpose: negate the argument by taking down the person making it. In reality it's just a plea to ignorance.

 

Expertise gets confused. We saw this a lot during the debate over COVID. Just having MD or PhD (in a science field) after your name doesn't make you an expert in all areas of science or medicine. So someone who is a medical doctor and criticizing an immunologist (who is also an MD) may not carry a lot of weight if you did some digging and discover that the medical doctor is a pediatrician for an orthopedic surgeon. Or the PhD is a chemist.

Again, during the pandemic people grasped at straws to support their particular bias and so if someone came out with something scientific sounding and had "Dr" by their name then they were given credibility (since conspiracy nuts believed the other people to be in the pay a big pharma or part of some global conspiracy).

Another one that I frequently see is somebody will call themselves Dr. and note that they have special training in "functional medicine" and give all kinds of anti-vaccination advice. Turns out that they are chiropractors.

 

When I'm used as an "expert" witness, the opposing side's attorney tries to make me look like I know nothing about the subject matter. He or she attacks my credibility hoping that the trier of fact (judge or jury) agrees. The side that I represent promotes me as the most knowledgeable person in my field. I fall somewhere in between.

So depending on whose side you're on will depend on whether I'm considered an "expert" or not. Ha!

 

formacion alcala are quite good, too. Can recommend both.