Originally Posted By: Craig750
Ok, but that is all hypothetical.
Until anyone who claims to be an expert proves his or her credentials, what they say is also "all hypothetical."
Originally Posted By: Craig750
What I would like to say is, shoot holes in his data please.
Tell the audience why his data is poorly interpreted and why your data is better.
I never claimed to have any data (where did you get that from?). I didn't say his data was necessarily poorly interpreted. I'm not even specifically disagreeing with anything he said. What I did was to express skepticism of his qualifications and claims. If you don't understand the difference, please let me know and I will explain.
Originally Posted By: Craig750
And if he is only a lowly technician at lowly SWRI would he still qualify to post here or is he below BITOGs standards.
If he is a lowly technician, he is fully qualified to make lowly technician claims. He could talk all day about how the tests are designed, how they are run, the machines they use, etc. -- as long as it doesn't violate the confidentiality agreements that SWRI employees have to sign, which is a whole other story and source of suspicion that I won't get into. On those topics, he would be a darn sight better informed than almost anyone on BITOG. What he would not be qualified to do is to make claims about industry standards, tribology, chemical issues, etc., beyond the basic stuff that he has to know to do his job. That would be out of his area of expertise.
This isn't about a "level" of qualification as you seem to be suggesting. There's no ladder where he is on a higher rung than the rest of us just because he works at SWRI and we don't. This is about whether or not the guy is talking within his realm. If he is a tribologist or a chemist, then I'm sure he can be believed. If not, then he can't. Until we make that determination, we shouldn't be betting either way. It's that simple.
Originally Posted By: Craig750
What qualifications would he need to be an expert here?
A few dirt bikes and an account for oil sampling at Blackstone labs?
Anyone who knows me knows that I've done my fair share of railing on amateur oil experts. Ask anyone with a high post count what I think about Blackstone UOAs, or what happened in the thread about the Mustang cams.
I'm not singling out your Internet expert. My gripe is with standards of evidence and authority in general. I'm not even saying anyone is necessarily wrong, just that we shouldn't believe that they're necessarily right just because they speak well and have a good rep.