Do we put blind faith in anything with a PHD after it?

Lovethinking

Should something that is said or written hold automatic weight because the speaker or writer has a recognised qualification in the field?

Is this not a form of blind faith, causing us not to examine his/her words more closely (should we not use the same tools of reasoning and interrogation on all statements?)?

I would just like to pre-empt the typical answer ("it's not blind faith... it's faith in a recognised educational authority") by saying "Yeah! and they've never been wrong before!"... (Warning: may contain sarcasm traces)

kippy

Why would anyone have "blind faith" in anything anyone says? PHD means jack sh1t as far as I am concerned. You need to make up your own mind about what you believe, no matter who the source.
What's this doing this this particular forum anway?
Kippy

sink

A PHD will lend credence to ones opinion but all opinions need to be backed up by facts in order to be considered. Holding a PHD to be a certificate of authority is to place too much weight, but to arbitrarily dismiss a PHD as "jack sh1t" is placing too little weight. A balanced view is one where a PHD is respected as a certificate of competence but not one of infallibility.

ScumLord

Most scientific findings are part of an ongoing debate. I wait to hear what everyone else says.

Borneo Fnctn

Anything published in a prominent scientific journal has been through a rigorous peer review. So you can assume that it's valid. I probably couldn't understand the content in, for example, a chemistry journal. However, I assume that it is well reasoned because it has been tested and couldn't be discredited by the world experts on the subject. Science is based on reasonable assumptions. Concrete proof is not declared except in mathematics. That's the beauty of science; everything is questionable. In short, a P.h.d alone might sway a member of the general public but it doesn't get half baked ideas into journals.

Lovethinking

sink wrote: »

A PHD will lend credence to ones opinion but all opinions need to be backed up by facts in order to be considered. Holding a PHD to be a certificate of authority is to place too much weight, but to arbitrarily dismiss a PHD as "jack sh1t" is placing too little weight. A balanced view is one where a PHD is respected as a certificate of competence but not one of infallibility.

Thanks for that concise definition of the "balanced view". I think it may help to prevent this thread descending into PHD bashing.

Húrin

Lovethinking wrote: »

Should something that is said or written hold automatic weight because the speaker or writer has a recognised qualification in the field?

Is this not a form of blind faith, causing us not to examine his/her words more closely (should we not use the same tools of reasoning and interrogation on all statements?)?

I would just like to pre-empt the typical answer ("it's not blind faith... it's faith in a recognised educational authority") by saying "Yeah! and they've never been wrong before!"... (Warning: may contain sarcasm traces)

Well, there is such a diversity in human knowledge today that nobody can know everything and we have to trust experts in other fields. It's not blind faith at all, but often is based on evidence that they are professional in their research and approved by their peers.

5uspect

Húrin wrote: »

Well, there is such a diversity in human knowledge today that nobody can know everything and we have to trust experts in other fields. It's not blind faith at all, but often is based on evidence that they are professional in their research and approved by their peers.

Unless of course those peers are not trustworthy themselves.
Some places hand out PhDs in all kinds of woo such as homeopathy and acupuncture.

Some PhDs in proper areas of research aren't worth a damn either.
Ultimately you have to solely take the publishing history of any academic into consideration.

O'Coonassa

PhD Philosophiae Doctor (doctor of philosophy)
PHD Presbyterian Hospital of Dallas
PHD Plant Homeodomain (microbiology)
PHD Prolyl Hydroxylase (protein)
PHD Portable Hard Drive
PHD Post Hole Digger (construction)
PHD Push Here Dummy (point & shoot cameras)
PHD Port Hueneme Division (US Naval Surface Warfare Center)
PHD Probability Hypothesis Density
PHD Pacific Health Dialog
PHD Professional Help Desk
PHD Phenomena in High Dimensions
PHD Personal Hemodialysis System (Aksys, Ltd.)
PHD Portable Handheld Device
PHD Post Holiday Depression
PHD Plumbing Hardware Dispatcher (Google TiSP spoof)
PHD Pisarenko Harmonic Decomposition
PHD Player Hater Degree
PHD Punjab Haryana and Delhi (India)
PHD Pre-Hearing Detention
PHD Process Historian Database
PHD Phase History Data
PHD Process Hierarchy Diagram (business process modelling)
PHD Parametric High Definition
PhD Pothole Dodger (driver on poorly maintained roads)
PHD Port Huron & Detroit Railroad
PHD People Helping the Disabled (Edmonds, Washington)
Phd Post Homicidal Depression (serial killers)
Phd Pathfinder Healthcare Developments (Smethwick, West Midlands, UK)
PHD Phased-History Data

Apparently we do indeed.

Lovethinking

5uspect wrote: »

Unless of course those peers are not trustworthy themselves.

This is not as unusual as we would like to believe.
It might be helpful for us all to note that when something new is discovered which will mean the revision or complete overhaul of textbooks, there are obviously major financial and "loss of credibility" issues which cause a resistance to change within the educational authorities.
Nevertheless, I would not promote being overly philosophical about it to the extent of not reading or believing anything... it would be foolish to miss out on the benefits of learning from the many intelligent people who have done the research and groundwork over years so that we can benefit from reading their conclusions in a book which takes only days to read.

robindch

Interesting question. Personally, I tend to trust a book far less if the author's name has "PhD" or "MD" after it -- it seems to be a sign that the author either bought the degree from a diploma mill, or was given it by a friend.

People with real qualifications tend not to boast about them.

bnt

I've encountered a few PhDs in the last few years, in the form of lecturers at UCD. As far as I can tell, it means that they are specialists in their particular fields, but that's about it. It doesn't make them good lecturers, nor does it mean that they are superior as people.

Is this question is one of those sideways attempts to portray atheism as a religion? I think argument from authority is a bad idea, and that applies to secular authority as well as religious authority. I try to practice non-discriminatory skepticism, but that doesn't mean I jump in to arguments about things that don't concern me. :rolleyes:

Ickle Magoo

Lovethinking wrote: »

Should something that is said or written hold automatic weight because the speaker or writer has a recognised qualification in the field?

Is this not a form of blind faith, causing us not to examine his/her words more closely (should we not use the same tools of reasoning and interrogation on all statements?)?

I would just like to pre-empt the typical answer ("it's not blind faith... it's faith in a recognised educational authority") by saying "Yeah! and they've never been wrong before!"... (Warning: may contain sarcasm traces)

It depends.

I would give someone who has an advanced academic award in a particular field more weight when discussing that field than the layman, that's not to say I have blind faith in what they write or say.

Generally, when someone has an advanced academic award in a field and they have remained in the field in which they studied, they know more than most on that topic. That doesn't mean their hypothesis are right, of course. In order for a scientific hypothesis to be accepted it has to be able to stand up to the scrutiny of any and all other experts in the field.

My Dad has two PHD's. Do I consider him as an expert on everything and think his PHD's give his general opinion on anything more weight? No. Do I think he knows more than most on covalent and ionic compounds circa 1965 and applied physics circa 1970 - you betcha.

Lovethinking

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It depends.

I would give someone who has an advanced academic award in a particular field more weight when discussing that field than the layman, that's not to say I have blind faith in what they write or say.

Generally, when someone has an advanced academic award in a field and they have remained in the field in which they studied, they know more than most on that topic. That doesn't mean their hypothesis are right, of course. In order for a scientific hypothesis to be accepted it has to be able to stand up to the scrutiny of any and all other experts in the field.

My Dad has two PHD's. Do I consider him as an expert on everything and think his PHD's give his general opinion on anything more weight? No. Do I think he knows more than most on covalent and ionic compounds circa 1965 and applied physics circa 1970 - you betcha.

I agree.
My question was born partially from the experiences of seeing quotations from "recognised" scientists kill an otherwise progressive debate or weaken an otherwise solidly progressing argument.
e.g. A debate is progressing nicely amongst a group of friends who have fairly substantial scientific knowledge and experience.. arguments are being built upon facts and reasoned into conclusions... then! someone decides to fill the gap in their argument with a quotation from a book (instead of reasoning it through)... it splits the crowd into the "many" who feel that this is acceptable and the "few" who would prefer that, at the very least, the reasonings of the quoted argument should be stated... not just the conclusions.
While I recognise that accepting the conclusions of other scientists (without checking all of the research and reasonings which led them) can save alot of time and resources, I do not believe it to be acceptable if you are trying to establish "fact".... eg. if I were working on the space shuttle then I would want to be totally sure of everything, because lives depend upon it.

Tim_Murphy

robindch wrote: »

Interesting question. Personally, I tend to trust a book far less if the author's name has "PhD" or "MD" after it -- it seems to be a sign that the author either bought the degree from a diploma mill, or was given it by a friend.

People with real qualifications tend not to boast about them.

Indeed, even if that's not the case, it still looks generally nob-ish. Whilst a PhD is no easy thing to get, it certainly doesn't make the person a genius either.

I saw a guy talking on TV once where they put a B.Sc after his name. :rolleyes:

dvpower

robindch wrote: »

People with real qualifications tend not to boast about them.

So says robin who flaunts his Diploma in Child Health