Critical judgment of work in any given field has little value unless it comes from someone who is an expert in that field.

The speaker asserts that work in any field can be judged only by experts in that field. However, is it really the case that laymen’s opinions are of no value? I personally do not think so. Admittedly, experts have more knowledge and experience in a particular field and hence could give professional judgement, but they can sometimes be circumscribed by their expertise as well. In this case, a layperson’s judgment may spark inspirations.

Critical judgments, though not always pleasant to ear, are crucial for the development of every filed. The most evident reason of this is that critical judgments can help address flaws. Many critical judgments also serve as complements of the current theories, rather than subvert them completely. In addition, critical judgments can point a new direction for future researches. To illustrate this, Gauss comes to my mind. In Gauss’s early years, he questioned the validity of Parallel Axiom, the foundation of Euclidean Geometry, which inspired his contemporaries to develop the new branch of geometry—Non-Euclidean Geometry. We can find numerous examples like this in one field or another.

With respect to the science or other similar fields, judgements of experts are indispensable. In the first place, only when one “stands on the shoulders of giants” can he see further and make progress faster. Even if previous researches are not so well-developed, they can be used as references. In the second place, experts acquire a thinking pattern that is exclusive for the particular field and an ability of induction and deduction by accumulating experience in this field year after year. Therefore, they are more likely to contribute constructive advice for the field. For example, doctors always know more about how to deal with a disease than ordinary people, and experienced doctors more so; lawyers are more proficient in laws; and that’s why we will turn to a doctor and lawyer when we encounter relevant problems.

However, we cannot afford to ignore laypeople’s judgments for they can sometimes be even more helpful than that of experts. As experts focus on one field for a long time, their thinking patterns are easily fixed and hence innovation would be compromised. On the contrary, laypeople may be able to spot some innovative points. Therefore, it is of great significance to take into account their views in order to gain inspirations or make breakthroughs. For instance, in the business world, customers’ views could have important values, though they may know nothing about the design, production, or marketing about products, since they are the ultimate users of the products and it is their demands that an organization should satisfy. Consumers know what they want from the products and they are aware of the gap between the products currently offered and their expectations. A company could try improving the product in the way a customer wants. It could fail, but it could also lead to great breakthroughs which could sometimes be so disruptive that its competitors would go bust immediately for not keeping pace.

In conclusion, from my perspective of view, only when innovation and experience are combined could valuable judgments be generated, and this requires both expertise and other so-called unprofessional views. To think out of the box is an ability we value a lot, and laymen’s judgments in this case play the same role. I would like to think that proficiency is the fuel while feedback from laypeople is the spark that ignites it. So people who are not experts can provide constructive advice as well as experts.