expert reader.

[keannu]

Korean SAT Lecture : 176p,15 by Korean Education Broadcasting System.

It is very important in the information age to understand the difference between knowledge and information. What is accessible by computer and, indeed, what is published in the journals is information. Knowledge is something that has to be constructed in the mind of the expert reader. This is what scholarship is about. Information is, these days, instantly accessible, but knowledge still takes years of dedicated study to acquire. Imagine that a freak accident wiped out an entire field of experts on a subject while all were attending a conference. How long would it take to reconstruct expertise in the field so that research could once again progress? It would probably take many years, despite the fact that their research was all published. To take another example, what do producers of science documentaries for television programmes do when they are researching their subjects? They talk to the experts rather than trying to read the journals. Quite rightly, as that is the only place that knowledge is to be found — inside the heads of the scholars.
===========================
What does "expert reader" mean? This means that knowledge can be found in experts' brain, but why is "reader" added here?
It seems to be redundant.

 

[Tarheel]

I would use simply reader.

Information is facts. Knowledge is the understanding of those facts.

 

[jutfrank]

The passage is about scholarship, which largely means knowledge acquired from reading. Information is transmitted through text, and knowledge is constructed in the mind of the reader of the text.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Right. The important word is reader, not expert. The term expert reader makes no sense. Either you can read or you can't.

Adjectives are often not needed, and sometimes they just get in the way.

 

[jutfrank]

The term expert reader makes no sense. Either you can read or you can't.

It makes a lot of sense to me. Reading is a skill, which can be developed. In the academic sense, reading isn't just the ability to decode squiggles on a page to identify words—it's the interpreting of those words, often into very complex, subtle, and abstract meaning. Expert readers will therefore get a lot more out of a text than non-experts. It sometimes takes years of practice to become an expert reader.

Since a scholar is by occupation an expert reader, the noun modifier (not an adjective) expert is quite appropriate to the sense of the passage as a whole.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

It makes a lot of sense to me. Reading is a skill, which can be developed. In the academic sense, reading isn't just the ability to decode squiggles on a page to identify words—it's the interpreting of those words, often into very complex, subtle, and abstract meaning. Expert readers will therefore get a lot more out of a text than non-experts. It sometimes takes years of practice to become an expert reader.

Since a scholar is by occupation an expert reader, the noun modifier (not an adjective) expert is quite appropriate to the sense of the passage as a whole.

Absolutely. It probably boils down to semantics. But - expert readers? That phrase just made me recoil. What an exclusive ring it has. Saying we need experts is one thing. Saying we need expert readers is something else.

Should readers pay attention to what they’re reading? That should go without saying. But since the writer felt that it did need saying, there are better word choices, like good, thoughtful, critical, practiced, attentive, competent, or careful.

I agree with the paragraph. We do need experts, scholars, professionals — people with specialized training, discipline, or credentials in their fields. But thank God you don’t have to be an expert to read. If we relegate reading to “expert readers,” we’re consigning ourselves to the next Dark Ages. (And boredom.)

My wife had a professor who said that the purpose of education is to be able to read the paper, understand it, and talk about it. And he made sure the class understood that whether you get that education in college or elsewhere doesn’t matter.

You’re right. Part of reading is pulling words and sentences out of strings of letters. (It’s not about brains. Some of the smartest and most successful people I’ve known have been dyslexics who couldn’t decipher a fortune cookie.) And the other part of reading is thinking about and responding to those words and sentences. And yes, the more you read, the easier it gets.

But does it take an expert, a specialist, a scholar? Or does it just take paying attention? For my own sake (and the sake of most people), I lke to think it’s the latter.

As a practice, a competence, reading is equal-opportunity. You don’t need a diploma or a license. There’s no secret handshake. Most people who want to get good at it can, dyslexics notwithstanding.

And if you and I didn’t believe that, we wouldn’t be here working with people improve their English, right?

So let’s meet half-way on this “expert” thing. We’re here because we want a world teeming with good, competent readers. We’re all better off if we don’t leave the reading to experts.