Phd who cares?

[Hanani]

i haven't realy got into many of these threads and i'm not going to submit any arguments for or against evolution or creation right now but rather i'm going to comment on something that bothers me

i've seen lots posts saying things like unless you can get someone with a Phd in (choose your science here) we wont be satisfied

well i have no Phd i like to think for myself and even if someone with a Phd in the exact topic i was asking about told me the answer i would still probably investigate it before completely believing it

so my question why does it matter??

also the fact that someone has a Phd just means they had the finance or was blessed with falling into the oppurtunity to get one i submit the idea many people have qualified for this or or other degrees in many fields all over yet have never been accredited not because they didn't deserve it or didn't know what they were talking about but because there circumstances didn't allow it

heres another question to the people that say things like this do you have a Phd?? if not and you use the logic the someone must have such a degree to be worth listening to why are you here because i guarentee most people here have no such degree also it's the internet i need not tell you how easy it would be to lie .....

heres another thought if someone with a Phd did say something in here if you didn't agree with it you could just say they were being untruthfull and dismiss them

the point i'm trying to make is that people that ask for credentials on a internet forum are doing so futaly and aren't giving themselves and others enough credit for having a brain and being able to think if information comes from a Phd or me some poor lowely highschool student it shouldn't matter and you should take it in the same light or else whats the point you will be able to dismiss anything you want at will

ok my 2cents are done i'll try and join in some other threads l8er if i have time

and btw if you didn't notice i don't deserve a Phd in english

 

[LadyShea]

It's not the degree so much as the education and years of study required to get it and the fact that most PhD work in their chosen fields.

Say there is a point under heated debate. If SmartGuy has his PhD in this particular field, then we know he has studied the subject and possibly works with it on a daily basis...If MissHighSchool diploma here has any knowldege on the subject it is based on reading the work of PhDs, or listening to professionals in the field. Does this make sense? If you need brain surgery do you want an MD, or do you want a really smart guy who is an Astronomer?

I don't have a degree at all, and I am able to follow much of the scientific evidence presented here, and I defer to those better educated in the various topics...they simply know better than I do..

 

[Hanani]

as i stated before is it not possible that some people work in a field and know as much as someone with a Phd yet may not have been in a circumstance to get one so are they not qualified to speak ? say some guy works on cars his entire life yet never goes and becomes a certified mechanic because he lives a stat away from the closest mechanich school and doesn't have the money for it is he not just as qualified if he can perform the same job to the same quality as someone who was a certified mechanich i bet if your car was broke down in his town you would have no problem with it??

and as for that highschool edjucated person whos to say they haven't had rl experiance with something? and when anyone brings up a point in here that isn't true it's usualy shot down by 20 different people in 50 different ways so whats to say someone that got there information from someone or multiple more informed sources couldn't have thought up something of value ? does this concept only work for shooting things down?

and as i stated before this is the internet if you did alittle research you could easly pose as someone with a degree also are you actualy going to take the time to check the credentials of someone making the clame to be an expert in this field? because if not asking for an expert is a mute point as far as using the internet as your means of communication

 

[Arikay]

I agree. A PHD isnt necessary to carry on the conversation but much of the evidence comes from people who have studied it.

When you want to know information about the bible and god, who do you go to? A priest/theologist? or a buddhist master?

Problems come when someone decides they are an expert in a certain field they know nothing (or only a small bit) about.

I agree though, all information should be checked up on, regardless of the source.

 

[Hanani]

thnx arikay your right you would not go to a buddhist master for info on God

my main point was what you agreed with in the last line of your post

 

[LadyShea]

I think I see what you are saying. I do not have a BA, but I am an Executive with a medium sized telecommunications company. I know mechanics with no certification, and I know IT guys with no degrees...all actually working in their fileds.

However, when dealing with the subjects we routinely discuss here, I must say I have never heard of a person employed as a Biologist without a Biology degree, or a Geologist without a Geology degree...the life and Earth sciences are too specialized for the layman to get a day job in a lab without the proper educational credentials.

 

[Hanani]

oh realy i'll give you just 2 examples i can think of off the top of my head but i'm sure there are many more what about say a retired sceince teacher or something that studies the topic in all his retired spare time having a base in science they would have somewhere to start there knowledge from and deffinetly know what to study and if there retired they probably wouldn't care about getting acreddited even though they may have done enough study to deserve it

example two what about a miner miners have alot of knowledge about rocks and things of that nature and depending on what type of mine they work in could have much "on site" experiance even if it isn't a scientific site

and how about this with that same example just because someone has a Phd in a field that has to do with this subject doesn't mean they know enough about it to talk competently a geologist would probably fit into the catagory of being able to contribute to these threads but if the geologist works for a mining company his whole life and never realy gets involved in studying evalution or creation he would be no more help in a debate then someone who read a book on the specific question and answered it or someone looking at pictures of rocks to answer it

just came up with another example what about a park ranger ?? i'm sure many such people have done some study on topics related to this and as far as on site experiance with places such as the grand canyon i'm sure there more than qualified to answer questions

 

[LadyShea]

Sure...a PhD doesn't automatically make anyone The Answer Man or Woman. Each person's credentials and experience and ability to convey that knowledge coherently need to be taken on their own merit.

Do you have an example from these boards where any of this was an issue in the first place? You seem to have taken note of some trend that I am not aware of.

 

[Hank]

If you have a PhD, people should call you doctor.

Hanani, I agree somewhat with you, but when it comes to evolution, this is a complex subject. I know that one can educate oneself in any given subject, but this should be a prerequisite to talk about a subject. Finances have nothing to do with going into a Uni and borrowing books and reading and learning. The applicable fees are usually affordable by all.

If you want people to listen to you, you have to capture their interest. When I talk engineering no one argues with me or asks if I got a PhD, it's the way I come across. Also important are your language skills. The biggest moron sounds intelligent with an appropriate vocabulary. There too, you can go to a Uni.

 

[Hanani]

i was just reading through posts and saw several to the effect of if we could get a Phd in (...) to answer this question .......

and that sort of bothered me because it's limiting other peoples abilities to give answers that they might have or it's sayin there insight isn't worth as much

 

[Hanani]

finances have nothing to do with doing the studying but unless your very blessed with an honorary degree it's gonna take some finance to get a degree

and i agree with your last paragraph irl when i talk people listen because i have a large vocabulary that i like to use when talking about stuff but when i type stuff i have trouble having the same affect on people because i have bad writing skills admittidly


i am going to disagree with you on the issue being complex an issue is only complex as the person analyzing it makes it

also even if on a whole most people agree with the fact that the whole issue of evalution vs. creationism is complex with the way this forum is set up we take one issue of each at a time usualy making each topic as simple as possible to weed out the unneeded info

 

[LadyShea]

Well, you have to understand that people often read dubious sources on a topic, then decide that they know more about that subject than anyone else. Case in point, those who believe Kent Hovind knows anything about anything...once they are convinced his crock of lies is the truth it is very difficult to make them see that his arguments fall flat time and again. The man is not even a scientist, his PhD is in Religious Education from a Diplomas-for-cash set up, yet his site claims to provide scientific evidence in everything from geology to paleontology.

 

[Hanani]

i have no clue wether hovind is worth his salt when discussing this topic or not but even if he wasn't i would still give his ideas a chance untill they could be put down with fact and btw you should be more specific when you say scientist you let your bias show you meant scientest with an acredited degree i a poor 18 year old kid fit the dictionary discription of meer scientist

 

[Zadok001]

Hanani:

The main problem is this: Someone with a PhD from a good university has DEFINATELY put in the time and effort necessary to acheive it. They know their stuff.

You posit that someone without a PhD who has studied alot in their spare time has equivalent, or at least reasonable, knowledge in the subject field. That, unfortunately, just doesn't work. Reasons:

1. Verification. If someone has a PhD from a known university, we can look them up. We can actively verify that this individual knows what they're talking about. A 'learned average Joe' cannot be verified. All we have is the word of the individual in question. As a result, we can't reasonably assert that they HAVE read what they claim to have read, or that what they say is based on knowledge and experience. (While this statement holds for a PhD, it is far less likely for a doctor of biology to BS biology than it is for the posited 'learned average Joe.')

2. Studying a subject in your spare time will NEVER match the amount of work put into a PhD. You can learn an enormous amount about a subject by reading about it, but you'll learn MUCH more by working side-by-side with doctors and professors, and learning from them. Your posited individual has never had a chance to write a full-length thesis and have it critisized by professionals in his area of study. That's a learning experience, and it IS meaningful.

3. 'Learned average Joe' has second-hand knowledge. He's reading material either written by PhDs or written for a layman by someone reading work by the PhDs. He's not sitting next to his own personal electron microscope examining rates of decay. He's reading about it from someone else. And that means he's never getting a chance to really apply his knowledge - Everything he learns, he learns as existant facts. He doesn't confirm or verify these facts, he merely accepts them. And his acceptance of these facts is not subject to the scrutiny of his co-workers.

 

[Hanani]

ah alot of what you said makes since but i'm gonna take some time to rebute u

1. a learned average joe can be verified sometimes such as in the example of the mechanic you said that the average joe may have claim to read things and then take them as fact the same can be true of the Phd

2. i never said spare time and sometimes even in your spare time it could match the amount of work it takes to get a Phd i know this sounds tright and cliche but some people are just that good i for one am not one of them but who am i to say someone else is when i don't know them and as for your working and having your work critisized my average joe would have his work critized by himself wich for an average joe if he is doing that much work means he will be harder on himself then any peer ever would be or the work is something that must be done such as the mechenic and if he's wrong it simply doesn't work and it's clear

3. the average joe does not always have second hand knowledge and not all of a Phds knowledge is first hand they get alot of things from books also and your example of watching rates of decay i'm betting they probably have some intern or lower level scientest doing that for them in most cases.

all i'm saying is we should evaluate everyones ideas the same if the idea is ludicrous it will be evident in the idea and should not matter what credentials the person it comes from are if the idea is brilliant the same if we don't do this we will just be missing out on alot of good ideas and also anyone can be discredited if you try hard enough and you can always use accredidation to your advantage one way or the other if you try and thats from both sides of the evalution creation argument so basing our view on peoples input is wrong

 

[JohnR7]

Today at 05:10 PM Hanani said this in Post #1

also the fact that someone has a Phd just means they had the finance or was blessed with falling into the oppurtunity to get one 

Someone with a Phd means they are suppose to be an expert in that area. It is not usually a reflection on how well they function outside of their area of study. Often highly educated people take on a image of being sort of fish out of water when you get outside of their area of study. They put so much effort into knowing all there is to know about something, that they lack a general education. Then others are the opposite, they have a general knowledge but lack a special knowledge in one area.

In some cases, even a Phd is limited, because man's knowledge is limited. That is why it is best to know God and to have the mind of Christ. That is limitless. Whatever we desire to know, if we are ready to receive it, God will abundently supply it for us.

I would rather be taught by God, than to be taught by man. Adam and Eve did not need a teacher, they were taught by God. Moses studied all man had to say on knowledge, then he went beyond that to be taught by God. Daniel and Paul learned all that man had to teach, then they went beyond that to be taught by God.

 

[Hanani]

on your first paragraph i have one quote

"I know alot about alittle and alittle about alot"
don't remember where it's from but that can sum up prety much everyone


and as far as the rest of your post yes being edjucated by God would be the best way to go but i'm not sure if you were trying to support my statements or visa versa with the ladder part of your post

 

[Miss Shelby]

Annabel Lee... I see you up there. Your pm box is full. I really want to reply to you before I sign off tonight.

Michelle

 

[Hank]

Today at 07:10 PM Zadok001 said this in Post #14

3. 'Learned average Joe' has second-hand knowledge. He's reading material either written by PhDs or written for a layman by someone reading work by the PhDs. He's not sitting next to his own personal electron microscope examining rates of decay. He's reading about it from someone else. And that means he's never getting a chance to really apply his knowledge - Everything he learns, he learns as existant facts. He doesn't confirm or verify these facts, he merely accepts them. And his acceptance of these facts is not subject to the scrutiny of his co-workers.

Question

A PhD in say chemistry would not sit in CERN to verify a potential momentum of quanta waves. That person would also not sit behind a radio telescope. Yet, I would assume he/she judges the validity of the Big Bang. That judgment would also be based on second hand knowledge. What is the difference between a well read Joe (not the average Joe) and this chemist?

 

[Hanani]

i believe the difference is that one has chosen to make a career out of his field or has had the oppurtunity that the other didn't and therefore has a piece of paper that says that but as far as being able to give information or insight on any topic including his expertise i believe there is no difference and if we treat the two different people with bias because of a piece of paper were only doing ourselves a disservice i believe facts ideas and logics in here should all be viewed in the same light giving each there due
the person who wrote whatever there idea was speant the time to think it up and write it or took the time to analyze and write it therefore it should at least get a chance b4 automaticly getting knocked down because it didn't come from someone with a PhD. behind there name