Well I must say, any expert should immediately realize that this article is the epitome of irony. Most everyone here is agreeing with an expert in the field of computer science about how you can't be an expert, simply because the expert said so. Yes I realize Jeff doesn't think himself an expert, but that's why people are agreeing with him, because if not for that perception, they'd see right through the ridiculousness of his logic.
Jeff, I realize you don't think yourself an expert, but others do. And they blindly follow you without critically thinking about the words you type. Only a while back you were pointing out that it takes on average 10 years to become an expert in a given craft.
@Mark Smith - yeah I believe you're not an expert, you've been writing in delphi for 10 years. Try picking up a few more languages and you'll begin to realize why.
@Jeremy Rishel - Thank you for posting some sanity high in the list, being an expert in something is not impossible, and you ABSOLUTELY CAN AND SHOULD hold a higher bias towards experts, while at the same time deconstructing what they preach in a manner to maintain an internally consistent logical model of the world. Otherwise you'd spend your entire life double checking the research of others and both you and society will never advance past the basics of math. Should you verify Newton's theory of gravity, or Diophantus's exploration into early Algebra? Or should you trust them as experts in their field that took them a lifetime to achieve and move on?
@Jeff - The links you reference and your criticisms apply to NON-EXPERTS pretending to be experts. When you meet a real expert in the field, (who's not a d*ck) then you'll realize they exist and that you will (not should) evaluate their remarks as truth. Because they can explain and rationalize their statements with evidence and examples. Not because they say so. Wikipedia does that because they have no way to vet the skill of contributors, not because they hold little or no regard towards true experts. Yes, experts can get it wrong sometimes, they're human, but that doesn't mean we should chastise the term or think of anyone who considers themselves an expert as a novice with ego issues.
@everyone - Start thinking for yourself. Sure there are bad examples of every type from programmers to librarians. But there most certainly are truly great experts in this world. Teachers, scientists, programmers and even politicians. They are rare because it's a difficult path. They embody honesty and humility because they've been proven wrong and have been humbled by it while traveling that path. But they are most certainly experts, and they do know it. They don't stop learning, but they do move on to different topics in which they learn because they have mastered previous ones.
Nobody can know everything there is to know about the future of software, but that isn't the definition of an expert. You can know 95% of what is currently collectively known about software, at which point you're AN EXPERT.
And I assure you, the technologies you're working with and the methodologies you use were devised by experts. Amateurs don't architect frameworks, very few amateurs ever reach such greatness, yet people grip on to figures like Einstein to think they too can become legends in their fields. Not all experts get their frameworks right, but I guarantee you almost every single amateur will write a terrible framework in their career, if they even attempt one to begin with.
If you found Jeff's post to be insightful and so true, then you missed the contradictions, straw-man logic constructs, and down-right idiocracy-like prophecy in just about every sentence. If you make amateur and mediocrity your goal you will get there, you'll get there fast (which is gratifying for some) and you'll never move past it because you will have convinced yourself that's where you needed to be. And when you get a mass of others telling you the same including perceived figureheads like Jeff, you'll have completely rationalized it as truth.
oh and @Mitur - Be careful of what conclusions you draw from studies. Your Cornell study only indicates that incompetent people tend to misjudge how stupid they are because the don't possess metacognitive abilities. Nowhere does the report indicate smart people think they're stupid (or even less than what they are.) The studies do show a few percentage points off in their estimations and their results for the top tier participants, but the margin in no way provides enough to counter the margin of error you get when you test 140 Cornell students. The social stigma of being a nerd with little self confidence alone is enough to justify those margins. And remember these are Cornell students, of course they're going to think highly of themselves... they're 20 year old's who were accepted to Cornell! Not only that, but you make the conclusion that it's because they know how much they don't know - which would mean they know how much they do know (because they have higher metacognitive abilities,) so they should be accurately predicting their results.