Re[2]: Is it soup yet? #4

David S. Buchanan (buck353@okway.okstate.edu)
Sun, 31 Mar 1996 22:27:22 -0600

Denis wrote (in response to Randy)

<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

=

=

=

=