A carpenter might say that his knowledge is trade knowledge and not scientific knowledge, and when challenged to provide some evidence that this supposed “trade knowledge” is real, and is worth something, may point to the chairs, tables, cabinets, etc., which he has made. The quality of these items may be easily examined, by someone with no knowledge of carpentry at all. “I am a trained and skilled carpenter, who can make various useful things for you out of wood” is a claim which is very, very easy to verify.
But as I understand it, CFAR has considerable difficulty providing, for examination, any equivalent of a beautifully-made oak cabinet. This makes claims of “trade knowledge” rather more dubious.
I don’t think this works.
A carpenter might say that his knowledge is trade knowledge and not scientific knowledge, and when challenged to provide some evidence that this supposed “trade knowledge” is real, and is worth something, may point to the chairs, tables, cabinets, etc., which he has made. The quality of these items may be easily examined, by someone with no knowledge of carpentry at all. “I am a trained and skilled carpenter, who can make various useful things for you out of wood” is a claim which is very, very easy to verify.
But as I understand it, CFAR has considerable difficulty providing, for examination, any equivalent of a beautifully-made oak cabinet. This makes claims of “trade knowledge” rather more dubious.