Food for thought

[Bugbear]

That is a very confusing situation, eh? On the other hand, a hearty disagreement forces people to explain and justify their positions, which can help everyone on Xmarks to further their understanding.

It can also lead to a situation of becoming a target; ie, the experts don't argue with each other, they argue with the non-experts listening to the opponent experts.

[tundramanq]

Ditto Forrester

[Deirachel]

A Phd is a degree in philosophy - aka bullsh*ting.

Wrong definition:

philosophy

[fi-los-uh-fee]   Example Sentences Origin
phi·los·o·phy

   [fi-los-uh-fee] Show IPA
noun, plural phi·los·o·phies. 1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.

2. any of the three branches, namely natural philosophy, moral philosophy, and metaphysical philosophy, that are accepted as composing this study.

3. a system of philosophical doctrine: the philosophy of Spinoza.

4. the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge, especially with a view to improving or reconstituting them: the philosophy of science.

5. a system of principles for guidance in practical affairs.



bold is mine.

[tundramanq]

I'll stick to my definition. It's more apt around most PHDs. 35 years among them - I know.

[ForresterModern]

BS = Bull S***, MS = More S***, PhD = Piled Higher and Deeper.

[Bugbear]

Gees, I'm glad I'm considered to be an uneducated idiot…

[CMcG]

People can mock PhDs all they want, but it is still a widely recognized form of expertise. Yes there is a difference between practical and theoretical knowledge. You might be surprised that some PhDs actually have both

There has been a move in my home university towards what they call "knowledge mobilization," which involves engaging with the community outside academe. It often involves a sort of translation between PhD-speak (what some of you have so delicately called BS) into everyday English. They've also been putting more emphasis on the accountability of the teaching practices of these same PhD in an effort to gear undergrad learning towards practical and transferable skills. I'm sure my university isn't the only one trying to dispel the negative image of academics as BSers...

[tundramanq]

Most of my career was working in the academic arena and national labs. About 10% of the PhDs can actually put their vast knowledge to use. The other 90% would be working in another field for a vastly lower pay if it wasn't for government jobs.
Some of them really are unable to have original thoughts anymore. Others got the degree to get the government job and don't want to apply themselves anymore - I feel sorry for them - they are wasting their lives at the tax payers expense.
Tech schools came about mostly to fill an urgent need of the private sector for applied science and skills as the universities were not putting out useful graduates.

[Zardoz]

Just to think I didn't make my post about 'experts on the interweb' the other day because I thought it would be considered too acrimonious by some of our more sensitive members !
Besides the frequent lack of practical knowledge I think a part of the reason folks don't respect degrees these days is that there are so many seemingly pointless ones out there like The Science of Harry Potter , Learning from YouTube , Surfing Studies , Doctorate of Philosophy in Ufology , Star Trek , etc.. that make that Art History or Philosophy degree look pretty relevant . Hell, I wish my school would have had the Star Trek or UFO thing, easy A!

(and yes those are all real degree programs)

[Mickey]

I'm with FM on this. There is academic expertise and practical expertise. It is up to the individual to decide which is more valuable. A couple of very condensed stories:

I knew a brilliant knife/sword maker who was approached by a local college begging him to teach metallurgy and technique. When they found out that he did not ever attend college, much less have a masters degree, they told him that he had to enroll in the college to get a masters degree in art (that they were begging him to teach, taught by someone who couldn't hold a candle to him, hence their coming to him in the first place). Now who is the expert?

My late father in law was a child prodigy. Multiple degrees including at least 3 PhDs by the time he was 18 from Columbia University. He had a brilliant engineering mind, but he was also one of the stupidest people I ever knew. He had no practical knowledge of anything outside of advanced engineering. (The man claimed to be able to notice the difference between the ions entering his skin between San Diego and China Lake). But the designs he came up with were nothing short of amazing. He just couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel.

In China Lake, I worked with some seriously disturbed scientists and physicists. The messed up hair, showing up to work with coat hangars sticking out of their shirts, mismatched shoes, type of people. Brilliant in their slim field. Totally inept outside of the lab.

In here, I'll listen to MoR and Jock, and a few other people. I don't know their credentials on vellum, and don't care. Practical knowledge trumps academia every time, IMO.

I know far too many people who are true experts in their field who, by academic standards, are brilliant, yet in terms of practical knowledge, are morons. I know far too many highly degreed people who claim to be experts in their field who, in terms of practicality, are dumb as a bag of wet chickens (I've raised chickens and have seen them in the rain. No university can provide that education based on theory).

Trying to figure out who is smart and who isn't, depends on the observer, and how smart they are, not how smart the poster claims to be.