Comment 92501

By kevlahan (registered) | Posted September 23, 2013 at 11:55:14 in reply to Comment 92496

There seems to be some confusion about what "claiming to be an expert" actually means.

One can be an expert because one holds a credential (e.g. an engineering degree), or because one is a member of a profession (e.g. works as an engineer), or because one has spent a long time building up expertise of a certain area by reading and evaluating evidence produced by experts (e.g. an informed amateur).

RTH has plenty of readers and contributors in all three categories, although we don't always wear our credentials on our sleeves.

However, the basic point is that RTH tries to be evidence-based and not to make arguments based on authority (i.e. don't believe me because I am an expert but evaluate my argument based on the evidence I've provided and the analysis I've made).

It is important to remember that besides the actual experts (i.e. people with engineering qualifications or PhDs in relevant subjects) many commentators and contributors have spent ten years or more visiting other cities to see what has been done and how it works, reading and evaluating the evidence and international best practices in the areas of urban design and traffic management. This is more than enough to count as an "expert" even if you are not a professional.

If there is a flaw in the argument or problems with the evidence, by all means point it out. But don't discount opinions just because the commentator is not a professional traffic engineer!

Comment edited by kevlahan on 2013-09-23 12:02:56

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds