Re: Rattling the Cage

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan E Brain" <aebrain@austarmetro.com.au>

> I think what it really comes down to is that the critic should know
something about what he or she is criticising.
>
> Thus I don't consider myself to be qualified to criticise a team of
skydivers if they have an accident, or a team of oilriggers if they
appear
to cause a spill. I'll leave that to people who have at least jumped out
of
an aeroplane once, or someone who's a mineral geologist with field
experience. Because I know just enough about both areas to know that
there's
a lot more to it than meets the eye.
>
> It's not a moral or ethical issue, it's an issue of informed criticism
vs
ignorant interference.
" of attempting it, then your opinion is most likely useless as a means
of
improving a situation.

I disagree even with this one. If somebody was killed in an accident or
an
oil spill occurred, then something has gone wrong and the public has a
right
to speak out and demand an explanation and to insist that measures
should be
taken to prevent it happening again. You don't need expertise to do that
much. Without such criticism, it may well be that people, companies and
governments will go on as before.

> There are few areas of human endeavour - be it warfare, medicine, law,
engineering, or game design where unless you personally have some
experience
"in > the field

It is perfectly legitimate to criticize unacceptable results. It's
criticizing the specific actions taken that led to that result and
suggesting useful improvements that takes knowledge in the field. And
no,
you do not always have to be a professional in that area to be able to
do
that. I have heard of cases where dedicated laymen acquired enough
information to suggest meaningful changes - changes that the
professionals
in that case hadn't thought of or didn't want for reasons of cost or
whatever. Admittedly such cases are rare.

Greetings