Authority Figures

How does someone become an expert? Well in my opinion to become an expert you must spend most of your time doing what it is you say you’re an expert in. If you say you’re an expert in cooking then you had better be a chef. If you’re an expert in rocket science you better work for NASA. One person I consider an expert is exhibition shooter Tom Knapp. He is and Expert in shooting guns. This man has spent his life perfecting the technique of shooting a gun, whether he is using a shotgun, or a .22 caliber rifle. He has set the world record for most hand thrown clay pigeons hit with a shotgun at ten. This is an amazing feat that not many people in all of the world could accomplish.
What I feel Tom Knapp is an expert in is the use of his shotgun. He knows everything there is to know about those guns and that is what makes and expert. The definition of expert according to Merriam-Webster is having, involving, or displaying special skill or knowledge derived from training or experience. According to this definition Tom Knapp is indeed an expert. Don’t take my word for it look at him in action. I love shooting clay pigeon and if I ever had a question about something and he was standing by I would definitely ask him the question. Whatever he told me I would believe him without a doubt. You can be taught to be an expert, or you can teach yourself to be an expert in any field. He shoots thousands of rounds of ammunition a year to keep up his ability to do what he does. He is an expert shot. If he one day just all together stops shooting then maybe he wouldn’t be considered an expert in the field anymore. But as of right now this man is most definitely an expert.

To Argue or Not to Argue

What is the difference between reasoning cogently and being right in fact? The difference in reasoning cogently and being right in fact is that when you argue cogently you make a good convencing argument about something you don’t know for sure is correct. People can argue all day about whether taking guns away from people would make crime go up or down. A good cogent argument would be a winning argument in this case. Here is a stance against guns, here is one for guns. Both of these show good arguments but which is right? They both have great points. Being right in fact is what it says, you know for a fact, 100% that what your saying is true and there is no other possible answer. Two plus two is four, this is a fact that can’t be wrong.
Which is better, to reason incorrectly to a true conclusion or to reason well to a false conclusion? I can see where both have their ups and downs. The first point you know what your arguing about is true and you are right, but you just don’t know how to argue and the way you present it is bad. The up side to this one is that your right in the end but a big down is that you made yourself look ignorant about the subject. If a person could combine the two of these elements that would be key. The other way is just as bad, but in the totally opposite way. You made a great argument but you were completely wrong and what you said has no truth to it. This kind of thing happens every day. People can make what they say sound peachy but it is a bald face lie. This type of argument can be dangerous, it can sway peoples thoughts and make them believe the speaker. Politicians do this all the time. Make a great speech but there is no truth to it.
In closing I believe that if a person can argue correctly and to a point that is supported by fact then that person will be in a lot better shape than a person that just does one or the other. People everyday argue, from little topics, to topics that could change the course of history. How you argue has a big impact on everything you stand for. As the great poet Aaron Tippin said “You’ve got to stand for something or you’ll fall for anything”.