OK, I cannot bring myself to add philosophy to the list of "don't argue with the experts, learn from them" topics, but maybe it's because I don't know anything about philosophy.
I find that an odd statement. Why can't you assume by default that arguing with an expert in X is bad for all X?
For some reason, theoritis is much worse with regard to philosophy than just about anything else. Amateurs hardly ever argue with brain surgeons or particle physicists. I think part of the reason for that is that brain surgeons and particle physicists have manifest practical skills that others don't have. The "skill" of philosophy consists of stating opinions and defending them, which everyone can do to some extent. The amateurs are like people who think you can write (well, at a a professional level) because you can type.
I find that an odd statement. Why can't you assume by default that arguing with an expert in X is bad for all X?
By default, yes. Let me try to articulate my perception of the difference between philosophers and other experts. When I talk to a mathematician, or a physicist, or a computer scientist, I can almost immediately see that their level in their discipline is way above mine, because they bring up a standard argument/calculation/proof which refutes my home-made ideas, and then extend those ideas to a direction I never considered and show which of t...
If it's worth saying, but not worth its own post, even in Discussion, it goes here.