To properly answer any question, a person has to have a comprehensive and authoritative knowledge of, or skill in a particular area. This is called an expert.

Credentials, otherwise known as a Ph.d, coupled with the practical years of experience in that subject are necessary to prove expertise. Standards are equally important. A Ph.d from a prestigious ivy-league university is in no comparison to the lower standards of one that is not. Peer-review increases that standard by culling out illegitimate experts.

An engineer with a Ph.d, but has no years of experience isn’t going to be much of an expert. He/she might, though, when speaking in theory. Likewise, for an engineer with experience, but has no Ph.d.

This question also applies to experts who answer questions of a subject they have no expertise in, such as a doctor answering questions that relate to architecture.

Why do you insist on asking/answering questions with a lack thereof?

Are you overestimating your self-worth?

It seems like a perpetuation of ignorance and disinformation.

Topics: expert, questions, social, answers, knowledge, experience, ask, credentials