4 ms·

The PhD is a fraternity. I think the only thing a PhD makes you an expert in is "PhD-ing". Don't get me wrong. I think having a PhD is a signal that you are v

by breck 7y ago

The PhD is a fraternity. I think the only thing a PhD makes you an expert in is "PhD-ing". Don't get me wrong. I think having a PhD is a signal that you are very intelligent, I respect, work with and love people with PhDs (I disrespect the system). But if you believe this: > Meanwhile, the percentage of frauds among self-proclaimed non-Ph.D. experts is likely close to 100% then I would say the percentage of frauds among PhD experts is 99%. No one knows anything. Perhaps non-PhDs are better than PhDs at remembering that. PhD's don't tell you how expert someone is at something. Unless the task at hand is making PDFs. People with PhDs are all great at that. If you look at the track record of "Psychology PhDs" in the past 100 years, I wouldn't be surprised if this fellow has done better work than more than half of them. Purely by chance, knowing nothing about his book. I trust experience and open data more than academic credentials. I would not be surprised if in 50 years we have a much more scientific method of doing science than the current PhD system.

oefrha 7y ago
Outside a small percentage of fraudsters, having a Ph.D. in a subject is hard proof that one has devoted thousands of hours into said subject and has treaded a more or less established path, with at least a modicum of quality assurance from field experts. That doesn't automatically make someone an expert (depending on the definition of course), but it does indicate one can have a serious conversation on said subject with said individual. It also depends on the institution of course: I would place high confidence on someone with a Ph.D. from Princeton Physics, and less on someone with a Ph.D. from a no-name school/department. With alternative scientists (I've seen many even when I was only a Ph.D. candidate -- some like to email an entire department at a time) there's simply no quality assurance whatsoever. You may review their work, but 99% of the time it's nonsense, so you probably don't want to waste time on the next one. And that's when you're qualified to review their work; when you're not, it only makes sense to assume it's nonsense, unless their work is endorsed by multiple field experts (without conflict of interest, which can be a murky issue in certain fields). So, you're welcome to propose better noise filters, but I maintain that having a Ph.D. or not is the first question to ask when anyone is trying to sell you a scientific theory you're not qualified to evaluate. Obligatory mention of The Crackpot Index. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html
- breck 7y ago
  I agree that it's a filter for someone that has put in the work to learn the research, which is very helpful. But my take is if a guy can go and sell 2 million books and the PhDs get in a tizzy because he doesn't have a PhD, and the lay person can't tell the difference, then the problem is these whining "PhD experts" and their pseudoscience, and not the non-PhD who wrote the book. The layperson can immediately tell whether a phone was made by electrical engineering experts or some crank amateur. If someone is buying some "fraudsters" theory over some PhD's, perhaps it's because neither of them work so it doesn't really matter. My take on the field of psychology (and many human bio fields) is we just don't have the scientific tools yet to make it a true science. But technology is finally making in roads (ie, wearables), so perhaps there's hope yet.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  If you reduce your standard from a Ph.D. to a 4 year degree from an accredited university, how well does the filter work? If someone is speaking physics and has a B.S. in physics, while it isn't as good a check as a Ph.D., they are fare more likely to know what they are talking about than someone without any degree in physics. I would also add another standard of career experience at applying knowledge, though I might just limit that to programming and computer science fields.
  - oefrha 7y ago
    I’m a physicist so I can say for certain that a typical college graduate majoring in physics but not looking into a Ph.D. isn’t equipped to discuss any advanced topic (say, quantum field theory). They are usually fifty to a hundred years behind frontier research. That doesn’t necessarily translate to psychology, which I have no idea.
    - 0xdeadbeefbabe 7y ago
      Not a Ph.D., but I have some idea the bar is lower for psychology.
    - SkyBelow 7y ago

by breck 7y ago

oefrha 7y ago

Outside a small percentage of fraudsters, having a Ph.D. in a subject is hard proof that one has devoted thousands of hours into said subject and has treaded a more or less established path, with at least a modicum of quality assurance from field experts. That doesn't automatically make someone an expert (depending on the definition of course), but it does indicate one can have a serious conversation on said subject with said individual. It also depends on the institution of course: I would place high confidence on someone with a Ph.D. from Princeton Physics, and less on someone with a Ph.D. from a no-name school/department. With alternative scientists (I've seen many even when I was only a Ph.D. candidate -- some like to email an entire department at a time) there's simply no quality assurance whatsoever. You may review their work, but 99% of the time it's nonsense, so you probably don't want to waste time on the next one. And that's when you're qualified to review their work; when you're not, it only makes sense to assume it's nonsense, unless their work is endorsed by multiple field experts (without conflict of interest, which can be a murky issue in certain fields). So, you're welcome to propose better noise filters, but I maintain that having a Ph.D. or not is the first question to ask when anyone is trying to sell you a scientific theory you're not qualified to evaluate. Obligatory mention of The Crackpot Index. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

breck 7y ago
I agree that it's a filter for someone that has put in the work to learn the research, which is very helpful. But my take is if a guy can go and sell 2 million books and the PhDs get in a tizzy because he doesn't have a PhD, and the lay person can't tell the difference, then the problem is these whining "PhD experts" and their pseudoscience, and not the non-PhD who wrote the book. The layperson can immediately tell whether a phone was made by electrical engineering experts or some crank amateur. If someone is buying some "fraudsters" theory over some PhD's, perhaps it's because neither of them work so it doesn't really matter. My take on the field of psychology (and many human bio fields) is we just don't have the scientific tools yet to make it a true science. But technology is finally making in roads (ie, wearables), so perhaps there's hope yet.
SkyBelow 7y ago
If you reduce your standard from a Ph.D. to a 4 year degree from an accredited university, how well does the filter work? If someone is speaking physics and has a B.S. in physics, while it isn't as good a check as a Ph.D., they are fare more likely to know what they are talking about than someone without any degree in physics. I would also add another standard of career experience at applying knowledge, though I might just limit that to programming and computer science fields.
- oefrha 7y ago
  I’m a physicist so I can say for certain that a typical college graduate majoring in physics but not looking into a Ph.D. isn’t equipped to discuss any advanced topic (say, quantum field theory). They are usually fifty to a hundred years behind frontier research. That doesn’t necessarily translate to psychology, which I have no idea.
  - 0xdeadbeefbabe 7y ago
    Not a Ph.D., but I have some idea the bar is lower for psychology.
  - SkyBelow 7y ago