it is nothing but contradiction. — Metaphysician Undercover

It clearly, patently isn't, and you're just digging your feet in. That's not Dan's problem. He's being an absolute gentleman trying to walk you through this. Your refusal doesn't reflect anything on he or his arguments. All of my comments about your posts stand, entirely. Your responses are just re-assertions of the same tired cop-outs at this stage.

"Expert" implies a quality of understanding, 'goodness', and this excludes "misunderstanding, which is 'badness'. But when we say that the person is a specialist we just acknowledge that the person's attention is focused on a very specific aspect of a field, so it is implied that the person is possibly an expert in that specific aspect. An accurate judgement of "expert" though, is much more difficult than a judgement of "specialist", because the latter only requires that the person has specialized one's study, but the former judgement, "expert", is best reserved until after the person proves oneself through experience, practise. Notice the difference between theory and practise here. The judgement of "expert", if rigorous standards are employed, requires practise as acts of proof, to demonstrate the quality of the person's education. And this is why many fields employ apprenticeships and internships. — Metaphysician Undercover

I was with you until this part. This part is just incorrect. Expert implies a quality of understanding I agree, but this does not exclude misunderstandings. What I am saying is that those who are experts in their field, who have a strong understanding of it, can and do still misunderstand aspects of that field, even narrowly construed.

I know you think it's silly. You think adhering to strict rules of definition is unnecessarily pedantic, and doing such in the field of moral philosophy is a ridiculous way of proceeding. So you'd rather go around in your circles of vagueness and principles with self-referential definitions which lead nowhere. This enables your intention of hiding contradictory statements in your illogical endeavour of attempting to show how two incompatible systems of evaluation are compatible. — Metaphysician Undercover

I do not think that adhering to the strict rules of definition is pedantic at all. I think that quibbling over the defintiion being used rather than addressing the point is sometimes pedantic. I have been clear and precise in how I have defined terms and am not hiding anything. The supposed incompatibility comes entirely from your misunderstanding. But your point here, that expertise is mutually exclusive with holding a misunderstanding in one's field, is just wrong. That's not how we define "expert" and, further, defining it in such a way would make the term essentially useless.

The fact that we make the general judgement that experts are not perfect, and all experts have misunderstanding, is irrelevant to the judgement of whether an individual with a known misunderstanding ought to be called an "expert". This is because the former is concerned with unknown misunderstandings while the latter is concerned with known misunderstandings. This makes the type of :misunderstanding of the two examples categorically different. Because of this difference it is acceptable to judge the person as "expert" while acknowledging the reality of unknown misunderstandings, yet unacceptable to judge the person as "expert" while acknowledging the reality of the person's known misunderstandings. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, there isn't a substantive difference here. If we judge someone to be an expert knowing that they likely misunderstand something, then later on we find out what it is that they misunderstood, we don't say "oh, well they weren't an expert then". Also, there are people we judge as experts now despite judging them to be wrong on some aspect of the topic. When two experts in a field disagree about something, they don't no longer consider one another experts because they judge the other person to misunderstand. Expertise is not mutually exclusive with misunderstanding.

But we cannot do as you propose, and have it both ways, saying that the doctor's actions were both right and wrong, that in itself would constitute misunderstanding in the field of moral philosophy. — Metaphysician Undercover

Again, that's not what I claimed. What I claimed was that (from an actual-value consequentialism perspective) the doctor's actions were wrong, yet those same actions would be right in most circumstances, so we may want to praise the doctor's actions in this case because we want to encourage future doctors to act the same way in the same (in terms of the relevant information they have available to them) situations.

Thanks, Amadeus. I have been endevouring to answer everyone's questions and criticisms, whether or not they are relevant. I am asking for help on a philosophical problem after all, so it seems the polite thing to do.