A physicist as you described, has all these tools, but he may lack practical or theoretical knowledge how to apply physics to his version of truth. — god must be atheist

Joe is afraid to get his hands dirty, and he's just a sissy liberal arts major or what have you. This is a little different, but I think another example is Western self-help commodifications of Buddhism, Taoism, Stoicism, or whatever. All talk that was carefully researched by someone who knows what they're doing, but no show on how to actually do anything. Praxis and experience greatly increase a person's credibility, because I can know Kant from A-Z but where does that really get me? — Albero

Are you asking that does this knowledge I have of everything onit's own make any position more credible, or is it only credible if one has all this knowledge of stuff and understands how to apply it? — Albero

Do you think it's bad that we have this bias (if it's real) ? I personally don't see why it would be bad if someone who's been around the block for years says "this is how you do it" compared to someone who's been working for a month. Another thing, are you trying to say others perceive antinatalists as being lazy or lacking? I mean it's pretty darn hopeless that's for sure, but lazy? — Albero

Maybe if some high profile Hollywood types started telling everyone at the Academy Awards to be antinatalist it would gain considerable traction. — Albero

I'm trying to say that there may be psychological hoops that people will accept for someone to be credible. Thus a random guy on the internet saying "Antinatalism... good" is not going to be fly as much as this highly-decorated person saying the same thing who is known for all these socially-accepted accomplishments (from the perspective of middle class social normative values). — schopenhauer1

So I don’t think one’s academic credentials, or notoriety hold much particular sway when it comes to accepting one’s philosophical views. — Pinprick

Also, philosophy tends to be very subjective to begin with. Therefore, oftentimes what ideas one accepts depends solely on whether or not it is appealing to them. To be blunt, you and I will likely never agree on AN. Even if you become, or are, some world renowned philosopher, or if AN becomes popular, it won’t change what I value, or how I prioritize those values. Unless there’s a way to objectively determine what we should value most, I see no way of overcoming our difference of opinion. — Pinprick

would this person have more credibility and legitimacy in terms of philosophical insight than someone who doesn't and work with these concepts? Does one need to know practical minutia of how the technological system works to have a real standing in terms of legitimacy? — schopenhauer1

But I am also trying to reveal that people often deem that knowing minutia in a field itself confers by some necessity, better understanding in existential matters like antinatalism. — schopenhauer1

I guess in this way, a question arises, "Does knowing a lot about something, make one more of an expert in philosophical concepts like the human condition?" — schopenhauer1

How about on matters such as ethics, politics, social theory, etc? — schopenhauer1

No. If anything, the deciding factors are 1. a person's socio-economic class, 2. that classes don't mix well.

Simply put: rich people (or those aspiring to be so) will not deem arguments from poor people as credible (regardless what the argument is about), and vice versa. — baker

He would have credibility and legitimacy in dealing with computers, including in the general philosophy of computers. But he would be lost on a medical issue, or a social one. — Olivier5

No. If anything, the deciding factors are 1. a person's socio-economic class, 2. that classes don't mix well.

Simply put: rich people (or those aspiring to be so) will not deem arguments from poor people as credible (regardless what the argument is about), and vice versa. — baker

I think it's an urban myth that this is so. But it can certainly happen that a person who has expertise in one field takes for granted that said field is as important to and revealing of humanity as a whole as it is to said person's career and means of living. — baker

I agree, and wish to add that other divisions also create credibility (and the opposite): level of smarts, level of religiosity, level of physical strength or athletic ability, level of good looks!! Yes, look at the celebrity thing. Level of social status, level of talent (among writers, artists and performers), etc. All divisions by sub-culture have their heroes. Heck, even being well-groomed and well-dressed (and the opposite) can give preconceptions to one's credibility or not. — god must be atheist

The more you produce tangible things that increase some sort of tangible product/services, that confers credibility. — schopenhauer1

You mean like Bill Gates? — Olivier5

With all this knowledge minutia... would this person have more credibility and legitimacy in terms of philosophical insight than someone who doesn't and work with these concepts? — schopenhauer1

Does one need to know practical minutia of how the technological system works to have a real standing in terms of legitimacy? — schopenhauer1

Good question. What I'm trying to get at is a possible bias we have for people we perceive as having more productive capacity or insight into "how-things-work" in a way that affects us tangibly. — schopenhauer1