Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field

Over the past few decades, the human civilization has witnessed an unprecedented advancement in knowledge in every field of endeavour resulting in their rampant specialization. Critical judgment of work allows any professional to diagnose faults and shortcomings in their approach, methodology and outcomes. The statement contends that such judgement for any work holds value only if it comes from an expert of the area. The assertion though appears true particularly for technical fields; critical criticism from outsiders can also benefit in different ways.

In the first instance, the statement holds merit given the value of expert opinion. An expert in any filed is aware of its subtleness which may be lacking in others. He can point out the most undecipherable of the issues in a given work; whereas a layman would lack insight to critique its novelty and originality. This holds especially true for the scientific and technical arena. For example, in the history of theoretical physics, only physicists have been able to refute and rectify earlier theories whether on the nature of light, structure of atom or classical and quantum mechanics. Even in non scientific areas like art, a non-expert cannot provide a constructive criticism of professional techniques employed to create a master piece. For example, not every individual can evaluate the merit of the artistic methodology used by Da Vinci to give life to Mona Lisa’s painting.

However, at times a technical work may also directly relate with the common public where they may be its end users or direct sufferers. For myriad technical projects such as installation of windmills, construction of a dam near a village and so on; consideration of public opinion and user perception studies are imperative to minimize the socioeconomic implications and maximize positive effect of the technology. Moreover, works on art, music and literature, apart from their technical proficiency, are also judged on face-value. Considering the previously stated example of Mon Lisa’s painting, while a commoner may not judge Da Vinci’s artistic capabilities; he still can appreciate the seductive appeal of the art. Similarly, though a music composition might be technically sound according to experts; the listeners can provide a fair judgement on its ability to connect with the audience.

The statement also overlooks the advantage of knowledge integration that can be achieved by invoking opinions from experts from different disciplines. For instance, an excavation project carried out by cultural anthropologists can benefit from professionals from different streams. Biochemists can investigate the fossil remains scientifically verifying the anthropological information about the causes of death, life expectancy, population make up, etc. Geologists, on the other hand, can corroborate the facts about the population’s economy, mobility, trade and occupations by examining the tools, utensils, weapons and other objects.

Furthermore, professionals confined within the boundaries of their work may not have the required subjectivity for holistic evaluation of their work. In china, for example, biochemists have been reported to use organs of executed political prisoners for research. While from a purely scientific perspective they may find this appropriate; critical judgment from civil society would enlighten them about its immorality. Additionally, opinions from outside may serve to counter bias which the experts might cultivate in their attempt to promote own work and denounce others’.

In conclusion, the statement is correct in so far that expert opinion is more valuable for evaluating scientific work or professional techniques of a project. However, opinions from laymen benefits in many ways in certain instances. Depending upon the nature of the work, such opinions can provide a social perspective and subjectivity; evaluate its face-value and counter bias.