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

"Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field." Though there are some veritable sentiments raised by this statement, I find myself disagreeing with the absolute quality of the statement. There are both benefits that can be derived from critical judgment from experts of a given field as well as criticisms from sources external to the field.

Experts in a field have the advantage of a greater understanding of their area of expertise due to their education and experience. Through the benefit of their specialized training, they have an understanding of the mechanics and workings behind their given field that the average layman does not have. This is especially true in the technical fields. An engineer building a dam would have a better understanding of the types of materials that would be suitable for specific environments. A doctor would be able to provide a better diagnosis than the untrained person. Therefore there is no denying that critical judgment from an expert in a given field does hold a lot of weight.

However, critical judgment from others who are not experts in the given field should not be discredited entirely. Though not necessarily from an expert, criticisms from sources external to the field can provide insightful views. After all, progress is best made in an environment that generates critical judgment, as it opens the floor for debate and provides perspectives from different viewpoints. Experts, though having greater understanding in their field of expertise, could potentially be limited by established facts and learning from their education or research. For example, it has been often said that politicians are often stuck in their “ivory towers” for they are not experiencing what the common man is going through. Though they are supposedly experts in managing political situations, it would be helpful to gain insight from citizens and how political policies affect their lives.

Also, judgment from external critics can help level out the subjectivity of any study in a given field. After all, we are only humans,and many of our motives are driven by selfish reasons. Experts who work in a given field are also driven by their own biased views and opinions. They could be driven by any number of motivations; for fame, for financial gains, to incite reactions from others and so on. For example, an artist's work, though an expression from the individual artist itself, could benefit from criticism and opinions from non-artist sources. Opinions from from outside sources could provide insights that has never been thought of by the artist himself, as well as provide constructive criticisms on how to improve his future works.

In conclusion, there are both benefits to be derived from critical judgment from both experts and non-experts of any given field. Experts, with their experience and training are able to provide solid critical judgment based on their understanding of the mechanics of the given field. However, critical judgment from external sources also provide perspectives from different views as well as neutralize the biased views that is sometimes generated by experts themselves.