<stuff deleted>
=
>Regarding phd degrees, they seem to pose a greater self-image challenge =
>to those who don't have them than those who hold them. One's self-image=
=
>and inherent value rests in Jesus Christ's love for us, not pieces of =
>parchment on a wall. However, the phd represents a lot of work, =
>discipline and commitment. It makes one an expert in one's area of =
>study. And there is nothing more irritating to a phd than seeing an =
>amateur pontificate nonsense in one's area of specialty (and, of course,=
=
>I am not referring to you) . . . in particular when that amateur doesn't=
=
>even grasp the basic methodological principles of the discipline.
This may be off limits for this reflector, but I have to comment here. I =
don't quite understand how a PhD represents a self-image challenge to =
people that don't have them. No doubt this is true for a few people but t=
he =
vast majority of people without PhDs live their life with nary a thought =
about it. On the other hand, the number of people with PhD degrees that =
have a rather peculiar perspective about it seems to be rather large. It =
does take work, discipline and commitment. This is probably much more =
important to us than it is to others. After all, we chose to follow such =
a =
path. Nobody was holding a gun to our head. It also takes a certain amoun=
t =
of ego, that too many seem unable to contain. =
A PhD does indeed make one an expert in one's area of study. Further, it =
says that we have been tested and found capable to think independently an=
d =
creatively about that subject. It is, after all, called a Doctor of =
Philosophy, not a Doctor of Science (no offense intended to the SciD folk=
s =
out there). Too often we forget that the area of expertise for our PhD is=
=
quite narrow. There have been surveys (sorry no citations available) of =
college professors in the sciences which indicate an appalling lack of =
awareness of scientific disciplines outside of their own. My eight course=
s =
in quantitative genetics, seven courses in statistics and dissertation on=
=
selection theory gives me considerable expertise in these fields. However=
=
my one college course in physics and zero courses in geology mean that I =
am =
little different from much of the rest of the public concerning these =
fields. There are obviously parts of the evolution/creation discussion =
about which I can claim considerable knowledge. However, it is one fairly=
=
narrow slice of the total amount of knowledge needed. In the other fields=
I =
have to trust colleagues in other fields to conduct themselves in a manne=
r =
that is consistent with conduct I experience among others in my own field=
=2E =
Perhaps the conflict that arose came about, in part, because people are =
often too willing to act as if they have expertise in fields where no suc=
h =
expertise can be claimed (other than the expertise of an intelligent, =
reasonably informed amateur). Maybe we all need to remember the old clich=
=E9 =
that says that a specialist knows more and more about less and less until=
=
he/she knows everything about nothing. Sounds suspiciously like a =
singularity; maybe if all the PhDs in the world got together we could =
experience a Big Bang (for those of you that saw a double entendre in thi=
s =
sentence, forgive me, it was entirely unintended). =
Again, let's be civil, even in private posts. For those of us with a PhD =
let us also remember that this gives us additional privilege (and =
considerable responsibility) only in a reasonably narrow area. For most =
practical purposes we are all fellow searchers for truth into areas =
(including the scriptures) about which we can claim little special =
expertise. =
Dave
=
=
=
=