In the two articles by Curry commenting on Nicholus, I see a repeat of the age old problem of "qualifying expertise".
I commented on Curry's Climate, Etc with
I find there are several major human issues with "expert"
1. Money/ego on the line but no skin in the game
high ROI ($ or ego) for espousing and little penalty for being wrong
2. "winning isn't everything, it is the only thing!"
-> ego on the line: very emotional males have this in spades
3. Level IV ignorance
Don't know what they don't know
=> Armour, Communications of the ACM, Vol. 43 No. 10, Pages 17-20
=> "Shouting from the top of Mt. Stupid on the Internet"
4. "Dunning-Krueger effect"
what I say is good/right/correct and what you say is wrong/garbage/stupid
How does one tell if
someone is really an expert
nisi aspernatur delectus dolores temporibus?
Remember the Chinese curse: "may you live in interesting, i.e. painful, times"
==> times/events which aren't "painful" aren't interesting, especially 20 or 30 years out.