How & when does someone become an

[MWB]

"authority?"

ie; an authority on WW2 or modern art.

[jake-the-peg]

It usually denotes someone a journalist has spoken to who agrees with the paper's editorial line.

In the more serious papers - someone a journalist has spoken to who is sober and agrees with the paper's editorial line.

In extreme cases they may even have had a book published on the subject.

[tamborine]

Hi MWB, when the person has relevant uni qualifications & experience in chosen subject.

[MWB]

your answer is good, tambo.

Jake-the-pegs is better.

:)

[tamborine]

Peter & Dan Snow are good examples of 'authority' on wars. Both Uni historians & journalists.

[No,Knowledge]

having lived through it MWB are you not an authority on WW2???????????????????

[MWB]

And you are a piece of modern art, no-kno!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[jake-the-peg]

Absolutely not No Knowledge

This is the problem with a lot of people on this site.

They think that their personal experience is representative of a wider context.

If you lived through WWII you are only an authority on your own experiences of that to assume those experiences are the same as everybody elses' and forms some sort of shared "truth" is the height of arrogance

[seadogg]

You have a point Jake but maybe contributing this forum is as much a recreational activity as a serious endeavour in the furtherance of human knowledge .

Otherwise we should mostly stay stumm!

[Davethedog]

Shirley anyone who can answer most of the questions on a given subject can claim to be an authority.

If you ask someone about the history of Kirkentilloch and they can tell you when it was founded up the modern day that is an authority.

Likewise if you ask someone about Yorkshire CCC and they can give all the facts and figures that is an authority.

You don't need a qualification but you do require unchallangable knowledge.

[MWB]

Thanks dave.

That makes perfect sense. Unchallengable knowledge!

[Oneeyedvic]

I don't agree that you need 'unquestionable knowledge' - most subjects are matter of opinion - and therefore it is always questionable.

Someone can be an 'authority' or art, and can lay out their qualifications - but art is still subjective and their authority can be questioned.

Paxman could be considered an authority on politics - but I wouldn't say that he has unquestionable knowledge.

[Davethedog]

If it can be challenged then you not an authority are you?

However you can talk about Piccasso, where he was born, how many kids, wives, where he was when he was in his blue period etc, without worrying about the aesthetics and you can be an authority on Picasso with no subjectivity required.

Like wise you can be an authority on the whtys and wherefores of politics, the history, the decesions and why they were taken without having to side with one side or the other. This would make you a political authority.

Subjectivity is in the end product, the painting or the decision not in how it got there.

You can be an authority on Art or Politics without ever having to be subjective.