Robert Maxwell wrote:
The problem is trading on one's credibility and reputation to make a prediction they aren't actually qualified to make.
It's his/her credibility and reputation to trade.
As for the predictions - their value depends on the arguments on which they are built, not on the titles (and the domains corresponding to these titles) the predictors have.
Yeah, I'm gonna have to go ahead and call bullshit on this one.
You know and I know that if Stephen Hawking announced with a straight face that the next phase of human evolution is likely to involve the genetic engineering of a race of enormous amazonian women
, ALOT more people would take him seriously than they would if that prediction was being made by a pizza delivery guy from New York, even if the delivery guy used the exact same arguments and the exact same research.
Famous observation: "Back where I come from, we have universities -- seats of great learning -- where men go to become great thinkers. And when they come out, they think deep, deep thoughts -- and with no more brains than you have. But they have one thing you haven't got: a diploma
Hilarious, yet I'll take the opinion of some of these scientists, who research books and talk with their colleagues in other fields quite often...and let's say Ray Kurzweil, successful inventor, businessman, innovator, computer software developer, winner of multiple national level technology awards, etc over you any day of the week...or even over the guy without a diploma. Sorry to disappoint.
BTW Hawking can easily extrapolate what he sees in academia and labs as well as what's possible in infotech that we have the transhumanist future I've described. A lot of it is in the math, and math is hard...but easy to predict if we don't get hit by an asteroid.
Frankly I'd take my opinion as an interested layman more seriously than someone off the street who has never ventured into such topics if we asked them about it.