Intrinsic intellect

Thomas Petchell (‘‘Re science education fail’’, letters, February 27) finalises his theory on public opinion with a blatant oxymoron, when he claims, ‘‘ . . . the author should either present their credentials as a scientist, or leave public opinion on such matters to those who are qualified by relevant accreditation from a recognised institute . . .’’

Hello Thomas! Public opinion is just that, we all get to have a say, and opinions expressed on any subject stand or fall on their intellectual cohesion, not on academic letters achieved by their authors.

Intellect is not only the ability to learn from a curriculum and thus ‘‘earn’’ letters after one’s name, it is more profoundly expressed in an individual’s ability to solve problems and coherently express solutions, even above those who may have a whole alphabet of qualifications after their names. Consider also, intuitive intellect, or the savant abilities of some who can come up with accurate answers to problems of science and mathematics, with no ‘‘frontal’’ knowledge of how such answers were achieved . . . the mind doing the calculations without need to explain itself.

Qualified science and yes, even medicine and philosophy questions put to lettered ‘‘experts’’ in any field, will produce many varying and opposing conclusions . . . therefore we know that the only way to quantify expertise is to apply a maxim which says, ‘‘expert is, as expert does’’.

Dennis Pennefather

Te Awamutu