₦airaland Forum

Ghostagain:
This dating is not backed by scientific research. But it is rather backed by jingoistic feelings.

The dating of the Ife and Benin bronzes is actually backed by solid scientific research, not just pride or emotions. You can look this up yourself. Experts from around the world including Europe and the U.S. They have studied these works, and their findings are published in trusted research journals on archaeology and art history.

Well I myself am an expert on my field. I don't speak as a consumer mervelling at testimonies of invisible experts who did this or that, I need to see the actual scientific work. Benin artefacts were thoroughly studied and contrary to what some people think, Benin artefacts are not restricted to metal works. Their dating is not a work of fiction. Benin has wooden artefacts, beaded artefacts, ivory artefacts...those are easily dated.

Metal/bronze can not be dated with carbon dating. Most of what you hear about ife metal dating is just pure imagination.

If you are interested in a field, then you should break the intellectual barrier between being a consumer and actually knowing what you're talking about on the topic. The moment you start talking about "experts"...I'm directly informed that you're a consumer.

Favour9ja:
The dating of the Ife and Benin bronzes is actually backed by solid scientific research, not just pride or emotions. You can look this up yourself. Experts from around the world including Europe and the U.S. They have studied these works, and their findings are published in trusted research journals on archaeology and art history.

That’s your opinion. As researchers, we all require solid data not hearsay. For context, I’m an engineer with two doctorates, so while I’m well trained to interrogate evidence and methodology, I’m not an archaeometallurgist. That’s why just as you would expect in any field, I rely on peer-reviewed work from specialists (if “experts” isn’t your preferred term) and evaluate their methods before quoting or referencing them. You might find this peer-reviewed article useful “The Composition of Brasses from Ife and Benin” by O. Werner and F. Willett. It’s not open access, but I’d be happy to share the PDF with you privately if you’d like to read it.

Ghostagain:
Well I myself am an expert on my field. I don't speak as a consumer mervelling at testimonies of invisible experts who did this or that, I need to see the actual scientific work. Benin artefacts were thoroughly studied and contrary to what some people think, Benin artefacts are not restricted to metal works. Their dating is not a work of fiction. Benin has wooden artefacts, beaded artefacts, ivory artefacts...those are easily dated.

Metal/bronze can not be dated with carbon dating. Most of what you hear about ife metal dating is just pure imagination.

If you are interested in a field, then you should break the intellectual barrier between being a consumer and actually knowing what you're talking about on the topic. The moment you start talking about "experts"...I'm directly informed that you're a consumer.

The only fields in which peer review actually makes sense are mathematics and physics, hard sciences.

When it comes to fields related to history (especially African history), you have quacks peer reviewing other quacks for a pay. There is no way around breaking the intellectual barrier between consumer and researcher in these fields if you actually care to be accurate rather than petting quacks.

Favour9ja:
That’s your opinion. As researchers, we all require solid data not hearsay. For context, I’m an engineer with two doctorates, so while I’m well trained to interrogate evidence and methodology, I’m not an archaeometallurgist. That’s why just as you would expect in any field, I rely on peer-reviewed work from specialists (if “experts” isn’t your preferred term) and evaluate their methods before quoting or referencing them. You might find this peer-reviewed article useful “The Composition of Brasses from Ife and Benin” by O. Werner and F. Willett. It’s not open access, but I’d be happy to share the PDF with you privately if you’d like to read it.

Also, if it's not open access, then it's trash 🗑️

Like I said, you're absolutely entitled to your opinion and it's perfectly fine to hold that stance in a space like this. However, that view may not hold up in evidence-based academic discourse, where rigor, not rhetoric, carries weight. That’s my opinion too, shaped by what I do as a calling and not based on populist or emotional views that often trend on social media.

That said, I don’t think it’s fair or even intellectually honest to dismiss research simply because it isn’t open access. I personally don’t publish in open-access journals, and many respected researchers don’t either. Ironically, some of the most misleading or low-quality papers today are found in predatory open-access outlets that exist solely for profit without peer review integrity.

In contrast, the article I referenced was published in Archaeometry, a reputable journal by Wiley and the University of Oxford. That’s not a lightweight journal. it has a strong impact factor and long-standing academic credibility. So yes, if you dismiss that as "trash" simply because it's not freely accessible, then we’re not having a scholarly conversation anymore; we’re just trading opinions.

I’m happy to continue this discussion on the merits of the evidence and methods. But throwing out entire disciplines or journals because of personal biases about access models doesn't help anyone seeking the truth.

Stoplying:
The only fields in which peer review actually makes sense are mathematics and physics, hard sciences.

When it comes to fields related to history (especially African history), you have quacks peer reviewing other quacks for a pay. There is no way around breaking the intellectual barrier between consumer and researcher in these fields if you actually care to be accurate rather than petting quacks.

Also, if it's not open access, then it's trash 🗑️

1.There is nothing emotional in what I said.
2.What I said is not a trend from social media.
3. I'm not good at rhetoric but rather at proving things, I'm a logician.


4. I have no idea of what you are talking about. I am giving you my own experience of having dived into other fields, not as a consumer who loves to quote "experts" but as a person operating at the same level as those "experts".

I have many friends in other fields with whom I exchange and in soft sciences we all agree that peer review is garbage 🗑️

By the way, I live in France and I'm giving you my analysis, you live in Nigeria, it shows. You Nigerians seem to have a tendency to call others "emotional" when they say something you don't like, when you are actually the one being emotional.

Favour9ja:
Like I said, you're absolutely entitled to your opinion and it's perfectly fine to hold that stance in a space like this. However, that view may not hold up in evidence-based academic discourse, where rigor, not rhetoric, carries weight. That’s my opinion too, shaped by what I do as a calling and not based on populist or emotional views that often trend on social media.

That said, I don’t think it’s fair or even intellectually honest to dismiss research simply because it isn’t open access. I personally don’t publish in open-access journals, and many respected researchers don’t either. Ironically, some of the most misleading or low-quality papers today are found in predatory open-access outlets that exist solely for profit without peer review integrity.

In contrast, the article I referenced was published in Archaeometry, a reputable journal by Wiley and the University of Oxford. That’s not a lightweight journal. it has a strong impact factor and long-standing academic credibility. So yes, if you dismiss that as "trash" simply because it's not freely accessible, then we’re not having a scholarly conversation anymore; we’re just trading opinions.

I’m happy to continue this discussion on the merits of the evidence and methods. But throwing out entire disciplines or journals because of personal biases about access models doesn't help anyone seeking the truth.

Belief in "experts" or "peer review experts" goes against the first foundation of science which is SKEPTICISM !

And unfortunately you are a consumer, a believer, not a scientist. You are like a worshipper in a religion while you believe yourself to be educated.
My friend you are practicing a religion and your "experts" are the prophets of your religion, you are not doing science at all.

Everyone is entitled to feelings; they’re not a “crime.” But in an evidence-based discussion they can’t replace data. Simply repeating “peer review is garbage” doesn’t constitute proof especially when you’ve chosen not to engage the published methods or results I cited.

Declaring yourself a logician is fine. A logician still needs premises grounded in facts. In this case, there are at least three well-documented, methods for dating the Ife and Benin bronzes. These are covered in Archaeometry (Wiley & University of Oxford) and other journals. If you won’t read the article I recommended, that’s a choice, but it weakens any blanket dismissal.

Yes, even in my engineering field peer review isn’t flawless but it is still the best safeguard we have against unchecked claims. Calling all non-open-access “trash” is itself rhetoric, not logic.

Diving into other disciplines “at the same level” requires more than private conversations with friends. It requires reading which you called consumption , replicating, or proposing alternative tests. If your goal is to overturn existing chronologies, by all means outline an experimental protocol that disproves their dating techniques; that would move the field forward. Until then, broad assertions don’t.

Where I (or you) happen to live has no bearing on the validity of this discussion. For your information, I hold two PhDs—one in South Africa and the other in the United States. I’ve also spent six months in your Europe on a scholarly exchange program. So, this idea of attaching intellectual weight to geography is misplaced. Scholarship, by its very nature, is borderless. What matters is the strength of evidence, not your coordinates.

Stoplying:
1.There is nothing emotional in what I said.
2.What I said is not a trend from social media.
3. I'm not good at rhetoric but rather at proving things, I'm a logician.


4. I have no idea of what you are talking about. I am giving you my own experience of having dived into other fields, not as a consumer who loves to quote "experts" but as a person operating at the same level as those "experts".

I have many friends in other fields with whom I exchange and in soft sciences we all agree that peer review is garbage 🗑️

By the way, I live in France and I'm giving you my analysis, you live in Nigeria, it shows. You Nigerians seem to have a tendency to call others "emotional" when they say something you don't like, when you are actually the one being emotional.

Skepticism is not the same as cynicism. A true scientist questions, examines, and tests but also builds on existing work when it's been verified by rigorous methods. That’s how knowledge grows. Skepticism without a method to test or disprove is simply denial, not science.

I don’t take claims at face value. I read the methods, assess the data, and evaluate the conclusions. That’s exactly why I provided one of the primary sources that lists the composition of these bronzes, outlines the specific dating techniques, and offered to share it with you.

Science isn’t about rejecting all prior work. it’s about standing on the shoulders of others, not pretending they don’t exist. If you disagree with their findings, you’re welcome to present your own data, method, or publication. But calling peer-reviewed scientists “prophets” and comparing scholarship to religion is not a rebuttal. it’s a rhetorical tactic to avoid engaging with the actual science.

I’m always open to opposing views but only those that meet the same standard of evidence I’m expected to follow in my own field. That’s not belief. That’s science.

Stoplying:
Belief in "experts" or "peer review experts" goes against the first foundation of science which is SKEPTICISM !

And unfortunately you are a consumer, a believer, not a scientist. You are like a worshipper in a religion while you believe yourself to be educated.
My friend you are practicing a religion and your "experts" are the prophets of your religion, you are not doing science at all.

Dude, I'm explaining to you how science works and I'm giving you my analysis of "soft sciences". What is so hard for you to understand in this situation?
You are the one whom is advocating for believing in "experts" without proof so long they are "peer reviewed". You indeed don't break the intellectual barrier between consumer and maker of knowledge in order to be able to verify if the "experts" are saying crap or not.

You are the one advocating for blind faith, blind belief, blind trust without proof, so long the author is "peer reviewed".

Even in mathematics, we often have real garbage which was peer reviewed, talk less of soft sciences.

Favour9ja:
Everyone is entitled to feelings; they’re not a “crime.” But in an evidence-based discussion they can’t replace data. Simply repeating “peer review is garbage” doesn’t constitute proof especially when you’ve chosen not to engage the published methods or results I cited.

Descartes gives the foundations of science in his book discussing scientific method. I suggest you read it.

As I said earlier, you confuse science with religion. You are a religious worshipper whose prophets are called "peer reviewed experts". What you are doing is not science.

esnbrutality:



BENIN EMPIRE IS AUTHENTIC.

YORUBA EMPIRE IS LIES AND PROPAGANDA.

THERE ARE NO YORUBA ARTIFACTS IN ANY MUSEUM OF COLONIAL NATIONS.

ALL THEIR CLAIMS OF GREATNESS IS JUST LIKE TELLING YOU THAT TINUBU IS COMPETENT

Can you explain to us in just 3 clear sentences why and how you will make heaven with the hypersonic missiles you dropped up there?

Aje please put asterisk on his name, pending his explanations.

The way I keep getting banned is annoying, I can't just debunk something, as soon as I do so, I'm banned and my comment is erased.

Building on existing work does not mean believing the work to be good, it actually means breaking the intellectual barrier between consumer of knowledge and creator/discoverer of knowledge, then verifying by yourself that the existing work is good then building upon it.

You are supposed to be the one doing the verification! Not some magical "peer reviewers".

I'm tired of this endless back and forth, and I don't know many nigerians who have the ability to admit when they're wrong, you guys would rather descend into pure madness instead of admitting that you are wrong.

The conversation between us ends here. Feel free to keep worshipping "experts" and doing religion while believing you are doing science.

The region and their so called wars are based on falsehoods

The region and their so called traditons are based on borrowed traditions from their conquerors. Why will Fulani name a Tribe YERIBA, which has become YORUBA and that same tribe will tell you that they have warriors?

The region whose unity is based on collective hate for other regions. Without external hate to keep them together, they will be cannibalisti.c amongst themselves.


The region is SW.

Elusive001:
Can you explain to us in just 3 clear sentences why and how you will make heaven with the hypersonic missiles you dropped up there?

Aje please put asterisk on his name, pending his explanations.

You are misrepresenting my position and misunderstanding how scientific knowledge evolves.

No one here is advocating for blind belief. What I’m saying is simple: in any rigorous field, we start with existing peer-reviewed work, examine the methods, assess the evidence, and if needed challenge it with our own analysis. That’s not blind faith; that’s how science progresses. Without building on prior research, there would be no progress, only everyone starting from zero.

Yes, peer review isn’t flawless and it’s not a divine stamp but it’s a filter. Sometimes garbage gets through (in every field, even math). But that doesn’t mean you throw out the entire system. You improve it by offering better arguments, better data, and better methods.

If you believe a particular paper is flawed, then the scientific thing to do is critique its methodology, replicate its experiments, or publish a rebuttal. A friend of mine in the same field with me once did that while I was in South Africa, and the earlier authors later published a rebuttal to his rebuttal. Simply dismissing all peer-reviewed work especially in fields you haven’t trained in as “soft science garbage” isn’t skepticism, it’s dogmatism.

Also, let’s be clear, you’re the one who completely missed the point and frankly goofed when you blindly asserted that Ife bronzes or other bronzes from that era couldn’t be dated scientifically. I stand to be corrected, but those artifacts have been dated based on their composition and casting residues. The article I referenced clearly lists the analytical methods used, including the material constituents of the bronzes.

These ancient bronze casts, while not necessarily identical in composition, share casting techniques notably the lost-wax process which often left clay cores or mold residues inside the sculptures. And this is evident from a simple inspection or analysis of online images of these bronzes, not to mention the X-ray graphics. These artifacts have been dated using scientific methods like Thermoluminescence, Lead Isotope Analysis, and Stratigraphic Dating and not traditional Radiocarbon Dating.

Quite frankly, based on your responses so far, it appears you’re not in the STEM field, as you haven’t demonstrated a clear understanding of the nuts and bolts of scientific methodology, how hypotheses are tested, how methods are validated, and how evidence is built across time. And that’s okay; not everyone is trained in STEM. But if you’re going to dismiss decades of interdisciplinary research, you need to engage with the details not just rely on rhetoric or personal conviction. I'd also like to make this my second-to-last response to you on this topic, as I don't have the time to keep going back and forth.

If you genuinely want to challenge the dating, then engage with the actual protocols and results. That’s what real scientific discourse looks like.

Ghostagain:
Dude, I'm explaining to you how science works and I'm giving you my analysis of "soft sciences". What is so hard for you to understand in this situation?
You are the one whom is advocating for believing in "experts" without proof so long they are "peer reviewed". You indeed don't break the intellectual barrier between consumer and maker of knowledge in order to be able to verify if the "experts" are saying crap or not.

You are the one advocating for blind faith, blind belief, blind trust without proof, so long the author is "peer reviewed".

Even in mathematics, we often have real garbage which was peer reviewed, talk less of soft sciences.

Since you’ve said the conversation ends here, I’ll respect that but I’ll still leave a final note for the record.

You keep talking about “breaking the intellectual barrier” as if that means dismissing the entire framework of scientific consensus and peer review. But that’s not critical thinking, that’s intellectual isolationism. Verification isn’t magic, and peer reviewers aren’t mystical beings. They’re subject-matter experts trained to evaluate evidence according to established standards, and their work is openly available for others to critique, replicate, or challenge. That is the process of verification in science. No one’s stopping you from doing it yourself but acting like everyone should independently verify every published empirical result before accepting anything is impractical and ahistorical.

Also, calling measured disagreement “worship” just because someone doesn’t accept your line of reasoning isn’t debate. It’s dismissal. And reducing it to an ethnic generalization about Nigerians being unable to admit fault is not just intellectually lazy, it’s deeply offensive.

At the end of the day, science isn’t about ego. It’s about evidence, and it’s bigger than either of us.

Take care.

Ghostagain:
The way I keep getting banned is annoying, I can't just debunk something, as soon as I do so, I'm banned and my comment is erased.

Building on existing work does not mean believing the work to be good, it actually means breaking the intellectual barrier between consumer of knowledge and creator/discoverer of knowledge, then verifying by yourself that the existing work is good then building upon it.

You are supposed to be the one doing the verification! Not some magical "peer reviewers".

I'm tired of this endless back and forth, and I don't know many nigerians who have the ability to admit when they're wrong, you guys would rather descend into pure madness instead of admitting that you are wrong.

The conversation between us ends here. Feel free to keep worshipping "experts" and doing religion while believing you are doing science.

Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

Your idea of a shared ownership model is a creative and pragmatic approach, especially where legal or diplomatic challenges exist. A negotiated return like the 78.35%/21.65% split you mentioned could promote restitution while encouraging collaboration through joint exhibitions, research, and cultural exchange.

You're right that existing agreements can complicate things, but without meaningful action, these conversations risk becoming repetitive. Restoring agency and pride to the original communities should remain at the heart of any solution.

Thanks again for engaging with the article in such a constructive way.

iboyclassic:
Thank you for this insightful article.
Could both parties reach a mutual agreement to resolve the ongoing debate about returning cultural artefacts, such as the Benin Bronzes, and move past the painful historical associations tied to slavery and colonialism?
One potential solution could involve a shared ownership model, where, for instance, 21.65% of the artefacts remain with current holders and 78.35% are returned to the proven original owners, such as existing African kingdoms or cultural groups. This arrangement could be based on transparent negotiations, fostering a sense of cultural pride, boosting tourism revenue, and promoting global awareness of these societies’ heritage.
However, it’s possible that existing agreements already govern the possession of these artefacts, which may complicate repatriation efforts. Without concrete action, this topic risks remaining a recurring discussion without resolution. Let’s hope for meaningful steps toward justice and cultural restoration.

To everyone interested in the scientific dating of the Ife and Benin Bronzes, here are some scholarly works that have applied thermoluminescence, lead isotope analysis, radiography, and alloy composition techniques to establish their historical timelines and authenticity:

For Ife Bronzes, we have these Scientific Dating Studies
1. Willett & Fleming (1976)
“A Catalogue of Nigerian Copper-Alloy Castings Dated by Thermoluminescence”
This landmark study dated 12 Ife bronzes using thermoluminescence (TL) from the 1938 excavation site in Ile-Ife.
Link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4754.1976.tb00156.x
2. Werner & Willett (1975)
“The Composition of Brasses from Ife and Benin”
They used lead-isotope analysis and alloy chemistry to trace the metal sources and confirmed Ife's distinct metallurgical tradition.
Link: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-4754.1975.tb00129.x
3. Craddock et al. (2013)
“The Olokun Head Reconsidered”, published in Afrique: Archéologie & Arts
Using X-ray, SEM-EDS, and corrosion analysis, this study confirmed the authenticity and dating (14th–15th c.) of the famous Ife Olokun head.
Link: https://journals.openedition.org/aaa/266
4. Eisenhofer (dates from TL studies quoted by museums)
TL dates around 1440 ± 65 AD and 1490 ± 85 AD have been widely cited for Ife heads, based on museum-supported testing. While not always published formally, they support a 12th–15th century range.

For Benin Bronzes, we have these Scientific Dating Studies
1. Nevadomsky & Lawson (2019)
“The Dating Game: Scientific Analysis of Benin Copper-Alloy Art—From TL to ²¹⁰Pb”
Covers a range of dating techniques applied to Benin works, including radioisotope dating (²¹⁰Pb) and critiques of forgeries.
Link: https://irispublishers.com/oajaa/fulltext/the-dating-game-the-scientific-analysis-of-benin-copper-alloy-art-from.ID.000525.php
2. Skowronek et al. (2023)
“German Brass for Benin Bronzes: Geochemical Analysis Insights into the Early Atlantic Trade”
Used ICP-MS and lead-isotope fingerprinting to link Benin brass to 15th–18th c. European manillas.
Link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10075414/
3. Fabbri et al. (2017)
“Authenticity of Benin Metalworks Evaluated by ICP-MS and Lead Isotope Analyses”
Used high-precision lead-isotope dating to distinguish pre-1897 originals from modern replicas.
Link: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0584854716301872
4. Werner & Willett (1975) – also applies to Benin
See above. Their comparative study helped distinguish stylistic and material differences between Benin and Ife bronzes.

I will encourage readers to read about (1) Thermoluminescence (TL) which dates clay cores trapped inside cast bronzes; (2) Lead Isotope Analysis which Matches lead traces to known ore sources or age since smelting; (3) ICP-MS / SEM-EDS which identify alloy content and foreign trade signatures; and (3) Radiography / Metallography: Reveal internal casting structures and corrosion patterns for authentication.

These works demonstrate that both Ife and Benin bronzes have been scientifically dated using rigorous methods, not just stylistic speculation. If you're sincerely interested in the truth about African metallurgy, these sources are a solid foundation.

Let’s move beyond rhetoric and build knowledge grounded in evidence.

I’ve carefully read these works and I’m open to engaging with anyone on their methodologies and findings. While I don’t claim to be an expert, I did take some undergraduate courses in Metallurgy and Materials Engineering, which gave me a some level of foundation to understand the technical aspects of these studies.

Note: Some of these articles are not open access. If you're a student and your institution doesn't have a subscription, feel free to reach out to me privately. I'll be happy to share the PDFs with you for engagement and educational purposes. Thanks!

The people without history at it again!

I encourage everybody to ignore what a non expert says about a topic. He doesn't know the topic better than you, though his pride makes him think he can teach you the topic which he doesn't master better than you.

Also, beware of people giving you "proof" then claiming that the "proof" is not open access. 🗑️

I repeat that it is completely ridiculous to put ife bronze heads at the same level as Benin bronzes. I already gave the reasons above. But for some reason some people must associate both. The fact that around 50 (much less I think) bronze heads were dig up in ife now seems to imply that somehow those things must be linked to thousands of Benin artefacts including ivory, wood and bronzes and beads...

Almost all you hear about for are just complete fairytales.

I repeat it again to the unsuspecting reader, you can't operate as a consumer if you are interested in a topic. You have to operate at the same level as "experts". Don't listen to people whom are consumers and therefore don't know more about the topic than you do. Which is to say they don't know anything about the topic.

This commentator (Ghostagain) is full of contradictions. On one hand, you say no one should refer to anyone as an "expert," yet in the same breath, you tell people to ignore "non-experts." Are you even following the flow of this conversation? Perhaps this topic is simply beyond your comprehension because it's evidence-based and doesn’t lend itself to low-level sentiment or rhetorical posturing that lacks factual support.

Your comments about "open access" vs. "non-open access" further reveal a lack of understanding. A basic Google search would clarify this. You don’t need to be a scholar or a researcher to know the difference:

"An open access journal is a scholarly publication that allows free and unrestricted online access to its content—anyone can read and often reuse the research without needing a subscription.
A non-open access (subscription-based) journal restricts content to those with institutional or paid access."

There’s no secrecy here as all the links to the studies and journal articles have already been provided, including publications from respected academic sources like Wiley and ScienceDirect. As for the PDFs, I cannot ethically upload or share them here, as they are institution-licensed and tagged with digital watermarks traceable to my institution. Doing so would violate usage policies.

Also, I’m not in the business of placing one group of bronzes above another. That’s not the goal of my research or my writing. My blog (www.brymostake.com) is a personal educational platform, where I document thoughts after investigations and thorough research for leisure and intellectual engagement. Debates like “this vs. that” are frankly beneath me. The original article listed among other things strictly the scientific dating of bronzes not ivory, not wood, not beads.

Yet, despite linking more than seven peer-reviewed studies from reputable publishers that detail the dating of the Ife and Benin bronzes, you continue to cast baseless doubt and dismiss the entire body of evidence. If you choose not to engage with verifiable information, that's your prerogative but don't expect people to treat unverified opinions as equal to scientifically backed research.

As for the broader historical links of these bronzes to the eras of ancient African states, yes, that’s a topic I will address in a future post. You’re free to ignore it when the time comes, especially if you're only interested in sentiment-driven narratives over substantiated scholarship.

Kindly show the quote !
I'm tired of you always saying complete b.s.

Favour9ja:
This commentator (Ghostagain) is full of contradictions. On one hand, you say no one should refer to anyone as an "expert,"

Yes, you not being an expert means you are at the same level as those you have the audacity to think you can educate. You know nothing about the topic.

You have a big understanding problem, one learns from experts, that is what profs are ! But "learning" and believing anything said by an expert or a claimed expert are two different things.

I learnt maths from experts, that is how I became an expert. I never believed an expert for the fact he's an expert, I doubted every statements of my professors...the process of becoming an expert brought me to the level in which I could independently say what is true and what is false. My professors job was not to make me recite their research but rather to lead me into attaining that level in which I can second guess them.

Favour9ja:
yet in the same breath, you tell people to ignore "non-experts."