What makes you NOT a socionist!!!

[psevdonim]

It's more of a if it walks like a duck, talks like duck and acts like a duck, could it be a monkey in disguise?

it might be well a monkey in disguise. If eventyally you find out that it was a monkey you'll look for a reason which made you take this monkey for a duck. You will detect a hole in your understanding and this is great. this is what helps us improve. You might find interesting this article which treats the subject.

I use to frequent this forum a long time ago and there were people that presented themselves as experts. You could really buy it. But after a while of observing things around me, people in real life, what they were saying was being contradicted by my own observations.

Well, if they contradict your observations, don't trust them including myself, of course.

So for example when you say “A typing expert must have good understanding of information elements and the model”. Who determines that? How is it determined?

The model and elements are intoduced apriori. There is no other way, some notions in any theory are introduced apriori. If they contradict your observations - discard them.

What if I say bullshit and 10 other people say, no no, he's SPOT on. Is an expert determined by consensus? By other experts?

We take it for granted that no expert says bullshit because of his evil spirits. So, basically at the stage when they say the bullshit, they honestly belive in it. So at the point of expressing it is no bullshit but opinion. It becomes the bullsit later when you demonstrate that it is an erroneous opinion. Well... it can happen to anyone to say and believe in bullshit. But since the bullshit is against the truth (or reality), sooner or later it will come up and will stink. The real problem is when you persist in the bullshit ignoring the stinking.

Basically the statement “the proof that we register something would be convergence of independent experts” is it really “the proof that we register something would be convergence of independent literately anybody”?

Yes, virtually experts are those "anybody". The main difference is that anybody does not care about special terms and notions. But yes, anybody will feel the objective effects of information interactions. That's what makes me believe in the objective side of such "unmaterial" matter as information interaction. And if the model is correct, it will have practical benefits including taking care of people mentionned above in the discussion and relationships prognisis and influence on other people and other things.

Is an expert determined by consensus?

Oh, if you are talking about technical side it might be some expert ranking system. The more hits you have the higher your rank is. we didn't intoduce it yet because it could provoke some unhealthy competition. But usually any specialist can estimate his collegues qualifications quite well.