ftbrave94

Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field. Is it possible to ask astronomers qualify an article related to the IVP, a new procedure to fertilize women that once believed that they cannot have a baby? Even sophisticated astronomers, in the case of IVP, are nothing more than normal people. Qualifying every work requires an expert who knows everything related to the work’s field. Judging a work is not a facile procedure that everyone can handle. In fact, analyzing a work in any given field won’t have a value unless someone with sufficient knowledge attempts to qualify that work. for one, it should be mentioned that every work in any field, from teaching Alphabet to convoluted articles in quantum physics, are based on the specific level of knowledge. The more complex the work is; the more knowledge will be required. For example, writing an article regarding inventing new methods to teach Alphabet to youth is not merely enumerated as a highly sophisticated procedure in comparison to writing an article related to calculating dark hole’s energy in space. However, both require experts with sufficient knowledge and training as well. Now, when it comes to judging a work in any given field, the situation is more challenging. Judging requires analyzers to have obtained sufficient knowledge in order to be familiar with facts, theories to prepare a probity judgment. Also, analyzers should devote enough time to scrutinize the work with all available perspectives, qualify assumptions and examine conclusion based on its supposition. Hence, it can be concluded that judging besides sufficient knowledge, require hardworking and energy to be a trustworthy judging. Moreover, as human’s understanding is not comprehensive and has been growing, every day scientists publish new theories and discover facts that reshape preceding works and articles done by previous scientists. Also, some theories might lose its validity because scientists may reach new facts that contradict with previous theories. Therefore, for qualifying a work, one should have the most pristine knowledge in order to analyze the assumptions and the conclusion of the work with new theories. For instance, economists once believed that the supply curve of petroleum was a line with positive slope, however, after so many years’ economists publish a new theory in which they state that the supply curve of petroleum is a line with a negative slope as its demand curve. Now imagine an ordinary person attempts to prognosticate the future trend of oil demand based on its price and supply; what would happen? Surely this misleading forecast will cause big companies lose their money. In other respects, if ordinary people instead of experts attempt to judge works, there might be some negative consequences regarding this plight. For one, people with little understanding of any field are not qualified to judge works since they lack sufficient knowledge to take into account all possible perspectives to judge a single work. these people might not see some assumptions of a particular work which in return cause a fallacious judgment. Also, unsophisticated analyzers do not have up-to-date knowledge and their judgment might base on primitive theories that now are wrong. For instance, in Islamic republic of Iran, some analyzers came with an idea that charging high-interest rate is a reasonable movement in order to keep people’s money in banks and eliminate people’s incentive to get loans. However, Iranian economists now consider this movement as a deteriorative task which in return diminish people into poverty. Therefore, if people with little knowledge try to qualify a work like an article or a political and economic decision, the conclusion will be wrong and without value. To sum up, judging a work is not as easy as some people think that even ordinary people with little knowledge can do. In contrast, qualifying a work requires a great deal of knowledge to recap the logic behind and uncountable hours of studying new ideas and theories to examine works with most recent theories and facts.