Yes, it's a reductionist argument that can apply to literally anything. Let's just delete all user discussions on the internet, and only allow PhD granted experts to discuss things on panels where they must provide primary sources for everything.

Or you could simply point out when someone is wrong, and explain why, assuming you are an expert. Then we all learn.

You could interpret it as an insightful observation rather than an argument to delete all comments.

> Or you could simply point out when someone is wrong, and explain why, assuming you are an expert. Then we all learn.

That’s pretty rare in online discussion, especially the kind with voting. The most popular argument wins, not the most correct one.

Yeah you're not wrong. I think HN is pretty good here though - we do have genuine experts (on tech) that correct people. That's why I value HN so much - I learn a lot even when I make stupid, wrong comments.

I didn’t mean to imply anything about who should be permitted to post or the subject matter of posts. My apologies that it came across that way. I simply meant it as an observation.

I could explain, as you suggest, and so could other experts. In my experience the likelihood of a response with denials, shifting goalposts or similar is much higher than an acknowledgement and gratitude for education. I’ll pass, but others might enjoy the challenge.

We shouldn't make fun of people for not knowing things, but it's perfectly okay to make fun of people for being narcissistic enough to think they are experts on a topic and arguing fervently based on their shallow and distorted understanding of the topic and hand when they are clearly not.

I think it would be helpful if folk highlighted when they don't know an area and are not experts. I think this is a better way to do it because it is clear that the person is trying to learn rather than spouting nonsense. Also, it takes a lot of effort to correct people, and when emotions are high this is a painful process. The RH post was a great example of this.

I've commented on some of the RH posts and got downvoted because people didn't like the facts (and I think maybe took it personally too). I've worked in Finance long enough professionally to know that I don't understand this fully and few people do. I do know enough to know when the comments are nonsense though.

I think that some of these issues comes down to respect and also arrogance. Imagine going into a new field and after 30 seconds deciding that you know everything (the Dunning–Kruger effect?)! Have a little bit of respect for those in the field and listen. Feel free to comment/ask, but don't spout 'facts' without checking and I think we'd all move forward faster.

Replying to myself to avoid edits.

The other reason that listening and not spouting fiction is a good idea is that it is a lot of effort correcting people d that effort could otherwise be spent elsewhere. Folk have good will, but there's a finite amount that shouldn't be wasted! Once that's run out they look to use their time effectively. Correcting you /again/ won't be up high on the list.