...to the validity of a person's argument?
I dont believe so, just because someone has academic qualifications does not mean that their point is any more valid than anyone else's. however, it seems that some posters on this sight seem to have a slight hang up over their and other people's qualifications.
Originally posted by davidtravellingLearning is for stupid people.
...to the validity of a person's argument?
I dont believe so, just because someone has academic qualifications does not mean that their point is any more valid than anyone else's. however, it seems that some posters on this sight seem to have a slight hang up over their and other people's qualifications.
P-
It all depends on what is discussed and what the person is qualified in. It is not necessary to have academic qualifications for a particular point, but it might help to back it up.
Quoting suitable sources is stronger evidence for a particular argument though. Being qualified in a subject does not mean they know anything and everything about that subject.
1 edit
Originally posted by davidtravellingIt depends on what they studied. Someone with a B.S. in computer science doesnt know crap about pschology.
...to the validity of a person's argument?
I dont believe so, just because someone has academic qualifications does not mean that their point is any more valid than anyone else's. however, it seems that some posters on this sight seem to have a slight hang up over their and other people's qualifications.
On the other hand, academic qualifications should matter a little--how would you feel if you went to college for 4-6-8 years and didnt even get respect for it.
**on the otherhand--this is a web forum, so how do you know if the person is telling the truth about there academic qualifications. Could just be blowing smoke up your butt.
Originally posted by davidtravellingYour question is vague. If we're discussing tooth decay and some guy on here is a dentist, well then that would certainly carry some weight. Of course he could still be wrong.
...to the validity of a person's argument?
I dont believe so, just because someone has academic qualifications does not mean that their point is any more valid than anyone else's. however, it seems that some posters on this sight seem to have a slight hang up over their and other people's qualifications.
On the other hand if we're discussing politics or religion the dentist is just as stupid as the rest of us.
2 edits
Originally posted by FurorActually, someone's BS in computer science alone gives no information about the level of their psychological knowledge. I think this is what the point of this thread is -- it would be ludicrous to say that, given Smith with a CS BS and Jones, with no degree, Smith is any more or less likely to not 'know crap' about psychology than Jones is (absent any other information).
It depends on what they studied. Someone with a B.S. in computer science doesnt know crap about pschology.
On the other hand, academic qualifications should matter a little--how would you feel if you went to college for 4-6-8 years and didnt even get respect for it.
**on the otherhand--this is a web forum, so how do you know if the person is telling the truth about there academic qualifications. Could just be blowing smoke up your butt.
I think RHP gives evidence that academic qualifications are correlated with the ability to make arguments in general, even about subjects unrelated to the field in which the person in question is qualified, but they are by no means necessary. I think the best arguments, regardless of their subject matter, tend to be made by well-read, widely experienced people with open and critical minds. On average, I would say that academically qualified people are more likely to exhibit these characteristics than the general population, but they by no means have a monopoly on these characteristics, and there are plenty of people with degrees who do not exhibit these characteristics.
It seems that the vast majority of people have a severly limited ability to argue properly, and a vast but slightly smaller majority of the academically qualified are similarly disabled.
Originally posted by wibThis is not necessarily true. What you mean is that the dentist's dental qualiffications don't render xym, a priori, any more able to discuss politics or religion than the rest of us. I'm not so sure this is true, however. There are many things a person can do, none of them necessary, to improve their ability to argue about politics and religion (reading religious or political texts, for example, or having an appreciation for the formal construction of arguments in general). I think the work involved in obtaining a degree in dentistry propbably predisposes one slightly to being a good arguer, although the effect may be small and it is certainly not a necessary condition for arguing well that one be a dentist. In fact, if you were to tell me that two people were about to debate and the only information available is that one is a dentist and one isn't, I'd put a small amount of metaphorical money on the dentist to make the better argument.
On the other hand if we're discussing politics or religion the dentist is just as stupid as the rest of us.
Originally posted by davidtravellingI agree academic qualifications are for egotists!
...to the validity of a person's argument?
I dont believe so, just because someone has academic qualifications does not mean that their point is any more valid than anyone else's. however, it seems that some posters on this sight seem to have a slight hang up over their and other people's qualifications.
Yours, Vladamir BA Honours, MA, PHD Micro Biology
If you're asking a University Prof. how to tie your shoes his answer may or may not be valid.
If you're asking him if the USA is the worst Country on Earth he's sure to give a longwinded yes .. but that answer won't be any more valid than your own conclusion.
His opinion on his subject of expertise carries some weight if he's ever left the grounds of the University, other than that he's just another voice.
Originally posted by davidtravellingIt is easy to get a qualification. You just have to demonstrate that you have understood what the course has been teaching you. A good way to fail a degree, for example, is to have ideas of your own, that are new and/or contoversial. Very few courses can stomach this type of student, and these are often the students who drop out (or fail). A qualification simply proves that a person is prepared to tow the line, to coooperate and to jump through all the appropriate hoops(Precisely what employers are looking for). It does not prove that their general abilities in using logic or their interlectual capacity is superior to anyone elses.
...to the validity of a person's argument?
I dont believe so, just because someone has academic qualifications does not mean that their point is any more valid than anyone else's. however, it seems that some posters on this sight seem to have a slight hang up over their and other people's qualifications.
However, they may have good knowledge of one subject, which may or may not be out of date by now.
1 edit
Originally posted by twiceaknightIt is easy to get a qualification. You just have to demonstrate that you have understood what the course has been teaching you.
This depends on the qualification in question. Simple understanding of material is certainly insufficient to get a PhD, and it is also insufficient to get most undergraduate degrees.
A good way to fail a degree, for example, is to have ideas of your own, that are new and/or contoversial. Very few courses can stomach this type of student, and these are often the students who drop out (or fail). A qualification simply proves that a person is prepared to tow the line, to coooperate and to jump through all the appropriate hoops(Precisely what employers are looking for).
This is at best a stereotype, although I sympathise with some of the ideas underlying it. In my experience, no university professor will reject a new idea if it is demonstrably sound, and if they detect it, they will reject a new idea that is unsound. They obviously don't do this perfectly, but this is precisely the point of academic education. In an academic context, new ideas are very important, but simple newness is insufficient.
I'm not sure which courses you're talking about, but I wouldn't consider courses geared toward a specific profession or vocation 'academic'. One may need to do academic work in medical school, say, but medicine, say, is not an academic discipline in the same way that, say, physics is. I know several physicists, and I doubt very highly that they'd fail a student for an original idea if it were logically and physically defensible.
The last sentence is completely inaccurate. I agree that far too much emphasis is placed on the employability of graduates, and this is something I find very depressing as a student (maths). Graduates should be employable as a by-product of immersion in one of the systems by which ideas are created, evaluated and communicated (the university). However, simple compliance and cooperativeness will not allow any random person to get a degree in literature or biology or any other academic discipline. Strong interest is far more important, and I suspect that there are plenty of people willing to tow the line who are incapable of getting a degree through lack of interest or ability. Even if I were more compliant than I am, I doubt I could get a degree in politics, for example.
It does not prove that their general abilities in using logic or their interlectual capacity is superior to anyone elses.
Right, but we're not looking for proof. We're looking for general correlations and incomplete causal relationships. The fact is that since academic disciplines universally require at least rudimentary skills in argument-constructing and serious discussion, someone with a degree is very likely to have at least rudimentary skills in this area, while someone without a degree may or may not -- hence my comment on the dentist above.
1 edit
Originally posted by royalchickenNah. I really meant our hypothetical dentist is just as stupid as the rest of us when he's discussing anything outside of his element. But the way you stated it was much nicer. 🙂
This is not necessarily true. What you mean is that the dentist's dental qualiffications don't render xym, a priori, any more able to discuss politics or religion than the rest of us. I'm not so sure this is true, however. There are many things a person can do, none of them necessary, to improve their ability to argue about politics and religion (rea t, I'd put a small amount of metaphorical money on the dentist to make the better argument.
I have found only a few *truths* in life, but one of them is this - Most people know what they're doing, but very few know what they're talking about. Unless they're talking about what they do.
Originally posted by royalchickenYes, i take your points, and agree with what you say. I suppose i was thinking about humanities subjects. Anyone (apart from some people with learning difficulties for example) can get a degree in one of the humanities subjects, if they do the work and can afford it in the first place. I did. A lot of work, but none of it required any huge gift. Anyone could have done it, that's how courses are designed. "Accessible" is the buzzword.
[b]It is easy to get a qualification. You just have to demonstrate that you have understood what the course has been teaching you.
This depends on the qualification in question. Simple understanding of material is certainly insufficient to get a PhD, and it is also insufficient to get most undergraduate degrees.
A good way to fail a deg ...[text shortened]... while someone without a degree may or may not -- hence my comment on the dentist above.
I agree that maths may not fit into my earlier generalisations, I wouldn't really know, i've never tried hard enough at it to find out.
At the same time there seems to be a feeling among some that the level of academic knowledge a person has is inversely proportional to the validity of contributions made to particular arguments.
There are also people in the world with PhD's who make and perform excessively wrong actions and claims within their own field of study, never mind alternative topics.
The eventual answer to the thread, as with many questions, is "yes, but".
-JC