[keiferski]

No, I don't think it's the same thing at all. For many intellectual fields, I'd say having an academic degree (or a degree's equivalent of knowledge) in the subject is more-or-less required to have an intelligent, novel opinion on the subject.

It depends on the field, but just to use one that I'm familiar with, philosophy: everyone seems to think they have novel insights on philosophical issues, but unfortunately these opinions tend to be really, obviously wrong and half-baked when analyzed by actual philosophers.

[volkk]

> It depends on the field, but just to use one that I'm familiar with, philosophy: everyone seems to think they have novel insights on philosophical issues, but unfortunately these opinions tend to be really, obviously wrong and half-baked when analyzed by actual philosophers.

I think there's a lot of irony and my point being further proven within this sentence

[keiferski]

I already replied to another comment that claimed the same thing.

[scandox]

> when analyzed by actual philosophers.

Kind of proving his point a little

[keiferski]

I don’t think competence implies elitism. On many topics, everyone’s opinion isn’t equal. I wouldn’t trust a random person’s opinion on civil engineering; philosophy in the sense of the specific field of philosophy (metaphysics, ethics, etc.) is no different. The effects are just more abstract.

Even then I’m not really claiming that academic philosophers are always right and amateur ones always wrong. Rather that amateur philosophers tend to make glaring mistakes that those educated in academic philosophy can easily see.

[volkk]

there's a fine line between competence and elitism. competence usually has direct measurable impact with ego. elitism is 0 impact, and all ego.

[keiferski]

I don’t really know what this is supposed to mean, but it’s pretty vague and content free.

[skdhfkdjfhsjk]

He's saying that you academics create a self-reinforcing belief system in which certain opinions are labelled acceptable or unacceptable largely or solely based on credentialism and their adherence to the preconceptions espoused within your bubble. A giant cult, essentially, that filters out ideas or ways of thinking that do not meet with its approval.

Take for example the derisive opinion of certain snooty academics about the work of Graham Hancock, or those millions of people who do not agree with the "global warming" narrative.

You will learn that academics do not have a monopoly on intelligent thought. There are many brilliant people in the world who largely reject that entire system as being obviously broken and corrupt.