Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field. Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the statement and explain your reasoning for th

History of human is a sequence of judgments. A plethora of people made decisions on many fields, and resulted in various achievements. In general, those people who make substantial judgements are experts or maestros in that field. People believe that experts can make more perspicacious results compared to ordinary people or novices in that field. I admit that many critical judgments are made by experts, however, this does not indicate that critical judgment of work has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert. In any fields, there are moments that radical and creative approaches are necessary, and in this case, beginners can be the pertinent people for breakthroughs.

First, in the field of science, especially in Physics or Mathematics, critical judgment can attain credibility if it comes from experts. Thanks to a myriads of scholars who dedicated to science, there are already lots of theories that are proved and hypothesis that are need to be tested. In this era, therefore, no one can study further without background knowledge on that field. In this line of thought, if one to make a critical judgement, one needs to be accustomed to all of the relevant facts and should have insight on that topic or problem. This is why experts make critical judgement in the field of science.

Secondly, experts usually make substantial decisions in the field of politics due to the fact that politics is the field which is closely related to people. What I mean is that, if someone want to make a critical decision which can benefits people, it is necessary for him to have insight on humans. However, unlike the field of science, politicians only can get the insight by experiences, because the real world does not follow theories; there are exceptions. Thus, in the field of politics, experiences are necessary to make a critical judgement, and this is why experts make critical decisions. To illustrate, Richard Nixon who was a president of USA, decided to end the Vietnam War. He did not just followed the theories or swayed to other people’s opinion, but made the judgement upon his own insight which is attained through his whole life. By this compelling example, we can see why experts make substantial decisions.

However, when radical approaches are necessary in a certain field, beginners or novices can make the breakthrough rather than experts. This is because experts are already used to their conventions, and see the problem in many a variety of views can be impossible. For example, Jack Andraka who discovered a new diagnostic for pancreatic cancer which is much faster and cheaper, did not have deep understanding on the field. However, the fact that he did not know the difficulty of finding a new diagnostic made him possible to start on checking all the proteins. Experts in that field did not even tried to check all the proteins which can show the augment of the cancer because they already knew that it will take forever. Jack Andraka shows that sometimes, novices can make truly valuable judgement by their passion and enthusiasm.

In brief, most of critical judgments would come from experts upon their experience and background knowledge. However, in certain cases, amateurs’ radical view and passion can make more valuable judgements.