Pieces of paper prove nothing

Acg67

It's not whether the person has the credentials or not, it's more about people using those credentials as their justification for making a claim, rather than actual scientific evidence.

If I have a degree in biology, and I'm making a claim about biology, I should be able to produce scientific proof for my claims, if I am an expert. If my only proof is "I HAVE A DEGREE IN BIOLOGY," then it is pretty clear that what I'm saying has no real merit, from a factual standpoint.

There's a huge difference between someone being an expert, and someone just having a degree.

No one supports the use of peer reviewed and evaluated evidence more than me. Of course anyone with a degree should be able to back up their claims with studies cited. If they can't, if all they say is "Shutup I know things I have degree mmhmm french fried potaters" then you should not only ignore them but also question if they're being honest in the first place.

I'm just trying to combat the very common internet meme "Yeah screw scientists and doctors! What the hell do they know!" It really irritates me, especially since we are all communicating using the internet.

That was never the intention of the thread to bash degree holders or people who have worked their butts off to get an advanced degree, but as Tiger pointed out, to point out if you're propagating myth and junk science, merely having a degree in a relevant field doesn't make what you're saying any more true then if you didn't have a degree

privatetime

My 2 cents... I'm always amazed by how much expertise in a given subject so many arguably completely inexpert people fancy themselves to have. (I have actual, legitimate expertise in a couple of fields, and I couldn't be bothered correcting the avalanche of myths, misinformation, and outright lies posted on those subjects every day, online. My colleagues and I could have a reasoned debate on those subjects, understanding the entire scope of reference, while accepting the limitations of science today. "The public" is so convinced of their superior, infinite knowledge, they can't be reasoned with. These kinds of people "know" because they heard it from someone, or read it somewhere or, better yet, read it ten times...so it must be true.)

Then I remember that, had the Internet existed a few hundred years ago, we'd have the majority saying, "Everybody knows the world is flat. I don't care what you say about this new 'science' of 'astronomy', or how many years of education and practice you claim to have. The world is flat. Everybody knows that."

I can only wish everyone peace.

engineman312

i'm a firm believer that a college degree only means you had the money to pay for college. i've met many stupid people with degrees, in all fields.

Guess you don't pal around with the ones who actually learned something then. Having a college degree can mean many different things. Determination and persistence come to mind. And that can't be bought.

"Stupid" is relative. Having a higher education degree usually isn't a stupid choice.

i have a bachelors in mechanical engineering and getting my MS in Energy Management. they're from public schools. and yet i still have to explain to the newest intern from a private engineering company how to do certain (most) things.

RobynC79

Hey, I am totally with you when that piece of paper has nothing to do with the topic, but I'm going to defend my fellow scientists and degree-holders here.

If someone posts a topic claiming that artificial sweeteners rot your brain cells, or meat rots in your stomach, or neurodegenerative disease and cancer can be prevented by some magic diet, we will absolutely respond by using the body of knowledge gained by those degrees we use every day to debunk these patently false claims.

Now if I had a degree in ancient aramiac literature, then yeah, me using my degree to support assertions about physiology and biology would be wholly deserving of your scorn. But I don't - I have a PhD in biology and neuroscience - if I respond to a relevant thread it's usually because I *know* something about that topic (and generally we don't make assertions about areas in which we're not well versed). Do you have to believe every word I say? Of course not, that's why I (and most of the other scientists I've seen responding regularly) give citations and evidence for our positions.

If that information contradicts a belief you personally hold dear, that's fine. You use your experience and knowledge to make your point, and I use mine. It doesn't make me always right, or anyone else wrong, but more information from knowledgeable sources is not a bad thing.

Thanks for that. I know I would listen to the experts over a random person anytime. At least they have the relevant credentials to back themselves up.

They have those degrees for a reason. They've done the work. They know what's up. Trust reliable, educated sources.

It's not whether the person has the credentials or not, it's more about people using those credentials as their justification for making a claim, rather than actual scientific evidence.

If I have a degree in biology, and I'm making a claim about biology, I should be able to produce scientific proof for my claims, if I am an expert. If my only proof is "I HAVE A DEGREE IN BIOLOGY," then it is pretty clear that what I'm saying has no real merit, from a factual standpoint.

There's a huge difference between someone being an expert, and someone just having a degree.

I agree with you - but I know of very few scientists who use the mere existence of their degree as their supporting argument. Nearly all the scientists who post on these boards who mention they hold a degree in a certain field, are telling us that as a way of indicating their access to scientific evidence and knowledge, and that evidence then supports whatever claim their making.

Anyone who says simply 'believe me because I have a degree in x' is more than likely not a scientist or an expert in their field. Working scientists have not only the letters after their names, but the knowledge and experience to provide evidentiary support for their positions.

ETA - looks like we're all pretty much on the same page by now - yay for science!!

JennieAL

It's not whether the person has the credentials or not, it's more about people using those credentials as their justification for making a claim, rather than actual scientific evidence.

That's it. In a nutshell.

There's a huge difference between someone being an expert, and someone just having a degree.

Exactly. I have degrees in fields where I'm not considered an expert. And I'd be the first person to tell you so.

BrettPGH

That was never the intention of the thread to bash degree holders or people who have worked their butts off to get an advanced degree, but as Tiger pointed out, to point out if you're propagating myth and junk science, merely having a degree in a relevant field doesn't make what you're saying any more true then if you didn't have a degree

You can say that, and I'm sure you feel that way. But the thread title says otherwise. You refer to those degrees as mere pieces of paper that prove nothing. True in a sense. But you could say the same about cash money. I doubt you consider a stack of 100's to be nothing more than pieces of paper.

The "piece of paper" is evidence that the person in question has done some learned work in a chosen field. No it is not a be-all-end-all. But it's better than nothing and worlds better than "well my friend says..."

Plus anyone spreading myth and junk science doesn't deserve the degree they have anyway. That's the fault of the individual. Not the scientific or educational community. Seeing one crackpot with a PHD does not negate the rest of them.

Quasita

People give me crap a lot for having a degree in literature... The fact of the matter is, though, that my studies refined my reading comprehension, and I can handle doing the research for myself. Then I write blog articles to explain it to other people.

I love how some people think it's a cop out when I state my opinion, but recommend a person see a professional in person. The reason I say it so often is because no one online can tell you what's going on with YOU, they can only give general info or stuff related to themselves. Granted, even in person, a counselor can be wrong, but they are much more likely to be specifically helpful.

So anyway, if you need a professional, see a professional, not MFP.

I have a Grand Masters in Bullsh!t afterall

Acg67

That was never the intention of the thread to bash degree holders or people who have worked their butts off to get an advanced degree, but as Tiger pointed out, to point out if you're propagating myth and junk science, merely having a degree in a relevant field doesn't make what you're saying any more true then if you didn't have a degree

You can say that, and I'm sure you feel that way. But the thread title says otherwise. You refer to those degrees as mere pieces of paper that prove nothing. True in a sense. But you could say the same about cash money. I doubt you consider a stack of 100's to be nothing more than pieces of paper.

The "piece of paper" is evidence that the person in question has done some learned work in a chosen field. No it is not a be-all-end-all. But it's better than nothing and worlds better than "well my friend says..."

It's only evidence that they did enough to get a passing grade and graduate, it says nothing to them having actually learned or retained any knowledge at all. Just by having a degree in a subject doesn't necessarily make them more knowledgeable in a given subject then someone without one

Quasita

That was never the intention of the thread to bash degree holders or people who have worked their butts off to get an advanced degree, but as Tiger pointed out, to point out if you're propagating myth and junk science, merely having a degree in a relevant field doesn't make what you're saying any more true then if you didn't have a degree

You can say that, and I'm sure you feel that way. But the thread title says otherwise. You refer to those degrees as mere pieces of paper that prove nothing. True in a sense. But you could say the same about cash money. I doubt you consider a stack of 100's to be nothing more than pieces of paper.

The "piece of paper" is evidence that the person in question has done some learned work in a chosen field. No it is not a be-all-end-all. But it's better than nothing and worlds better than "well my friend says..."

It's only evidence that they did enough to get a passing grade and graduate, it says nothing to them having actually learned or retained any knowledge at all. Just by having a degree in a subject doesn't necessarily make them more knowledgeable in a given subject then someone without one

This reminds me of when I got into an argument with my mom about diabetes symptoms. My mom claimed that since she's been living with it for over 20 years, she knew more, and that there was no way that weight gain was a symptom of diabetes.
Yet, my dad whipped out the smartphone and googled it and found multiple sources where it was in fact listed as a symptom.

The point all in all is that you'd hope the more educated people in society would be open to more perspectives, and therefore learning and challenging their own knowledge. This is the debate between "book smart" and "street smart" really. Too many people sit on the degree and don't look past it, relying on it to win everything... But the knowledge does become obsolete, and the farther from your graduation you get, the more re-education you need.

JennieAL

But the knowledge does become obsolete, and the farther from your graduation you get, the more re-education you need.

Yes! And it's these people who can become the most dangerous or detrimental to their fields.

BrettPGH

It's only evidence that they did enough to get a passing grade and graduate, it says nothing to them having actually learned or retained any knowledge at all. Just by having a degree in a subject doesn't necessarily make them more knowledgeable in a given subject then someone without one

Yes, but that's evidence of more than someone without a degree has, at first glance. Once two people have made an argument you can examine each side to determine who's right. But if you want to figure out who might be more knowlegeable on a given subject you should put faith in those with degrees first, until they do something to prove themselves wrong. Discrediting someone's academic achievements beforehand for no good reason besides "Aww what does a degree prove?" is bad logic.

If someone hands you a $20 bill for a stick of gum it COULD be counterfeit. Just because it looks like a $20 doesn't mean it is one. But we don't call the forensics team to analyze every bill in our wallets. We generally trust that the money we have is in fact money. There should be a similar level of trust with academic degrees. Otherwise what's the point? Don't ask a lawyer about legal matters, the guy next door MIGHT know more. Why ask a physical trainer who spent 6 years studying about exercise? Just see what people are saying on the internet...

Having the degree is proof that at the very least you've put a certain amount of work into learning about a field. No, it does not automatically make you an expert. But it does put you ahead of people without one. You've proven that by earning your degree. They really don't just hand them out to anyone.

I just hate where this argument goes sometimes. Some people like to act like having an advanced degree proves you are in fact NOT that smart. "I'd rather trust the guy I can have a beer with".. that sort of thinking. I really hate that.

Acg67

It's only evidence that they did enough to get a passing grade and graduate, it says nothing to them having actually learned or retained any knowledge at all. Just by having a degree in a subject doesn't necessarily make them more knowledgeable in a given subject then someone without one

Yes, but that's evidence of more than someone without a degree has, at first glance. Once two people have made an argument you can examine each side to determine who's right. But if you want to figure out who might be more knowlegeable on a given subject you should put faith in those with degrees first, until they do something to prove themselves wrong. Discrediting someone's academic achievements beforehand for no good reason besides "Aww what does a degree prove?" is bad logic.

If someone hands you a $20 bill for a stick of gum it COULD be counterfeit. Just because it looks like a $20 doesn't mean it is one. But we don't call the forensics team to analyze every bill in our wallets. We generally trust that the money we have is in fact money. There should be a similar level of trust with academic degrees. Otherwise what's the point? Don't ask a lawyer about legal matters, the guy next door MIGHT know more. Why ask a physical trainer who spent 6 years studying about exercise? Just see what people are saying on the internet...

Having the degree is proof that at the very least you've put a certain amount of work into learning about a field. No, it does not automatically make you an expert. But it does put you ahead of people without one. You've proven that by earning your degree. They really don't just hand them out to anyone.

I just hate where this argument goes sometimes. Some people like to act like having an advanced degree proves you are in fact NOT that smart. "I'd rather trust the guy I can have a beer with".. that sort of thinking. I really hate that.

First using the PT example is a poor one as many of them are idiots and you're using bad logic by automatically holding someone with a degree in higher regard then one without, when just comparing two people side by side.

What of the people like Bill Gates or any other successful people that didn't graduate from college? What about all the stories going around now about the for profit schools that are giving their students little to none actual applicable job skills?

I'm certainly not discounting the value of a college degree, but I also don't automatically assume that by having a degree they are knowledgeable in a given subject

almc170

As someone who holds a master's degree and works in higher ed, I can assure you that merely holding a degree is not a reliable indicator of expertise in a subject. In fact, graduate education is often more about navigating academic politics than significantly contributing to a body of knowledge.

BrettPGH

First using the PT example is a poor one as many of them are idiots and you're using bad logic by automatically holding someone with a degree in higher regard then one without, when just comparing two people side by side.

Am I? Example: You're being sued. Who do you consult? A lawyer? But why? Just because they have a law degree doesn't prove anything right? You have a lawyer and your neighbor side by side, do you really consider the two of them equals in the field of law? When you have nothing to go off other than the fact that one person has a degree and the other doesn't the smart choice will always be to choose the person who has proven a certain amount of experience in the field. That's what a degree is. Proof that a certain amount of knowledge has been obtained. IF the second person in question has qualifications that put them above the person with the degree than fine. But until that time the degree wins because it's automatically a certain level of proof.

What of the people like Bill Gates or any other successful people that didn't graduate from college? What about all the stories going around now about the for profit schools that are giving their students little to none actual applicable job skills?

I'm certainly not discounting the value of a college degree, but I also don't automatically assume that by having a degree they are knowledgeable in a given subject

There will always be examples of people who are successful without degrees. Bill Gates never graduated college, Dave Thomas never graduated high school, etc. etc. These people are the exception, not the rule. They prove it's POSSIBLE. That's all. I never said it wasn't. To look at their example and say "Well that proves education doesn't mean much" is a fallacy. You CAN run a marathon backwards, that doesn't make it a good idea. You wouldn't say "Aw who cares about running forward! You can do either one, they're both the same."

Acg67

Am I? Example: You're being sued. Who do you consult? A lawyer? But why? Just because they have a law degree doesn't prove anything right? You have a lawyer and your neighbor side by side, do you really consider the two of them equals in the field of law? When you have nothing to go off other than the fact that one person has a degree and the other doesn't the smart choice will always be to choose the person who has proven a certain amount of experience in the field. That's what a degree is. Proof that a certain amount of knowledge has been obtained. IF the second person in question has qualifications that put them above the person with the degree than fine. But until that time the degree wins because it's automatically a certain level of proof.

You're using an example of a highly specialized field and an advanced degree, while i'm talking in more general terms. In your hypothetical I would most likely take the person with the degree. One of our sticking points is that I don't agree that having a degree necessarily confers a certain amount of knowledge has been obtained, all it says is that you did enough to pass and graduate, you can get through college with just doing barely enough to get by and not actually learning a damn thing.

And this is a bit off topic, since the original point was to point out that bad advice given by those with degrees in relevant fields doesn't make it any more true then if they didn't have one

BrettPGH

You're using an example of a highly specialized field and an advanced degree, while i'm talking in more general terms. In your hypothetical I would most likely take the person with the degree. One of our sticking points is that I don't agree that having a degree necessarily confers a certain amount of knowledge has been obtained, all it says is that you did enough to pass and graduate, you can get through college with just doing barely enough to get by and not actually learning a damn thing.

And this is a bit off topic, since the original point was to point out that bad advice given by those with degrees in relevant fields doesn't make it any more true then if they didn't have one

I think it's something we've both been doing. Using extreme examples to either prove ourselves right or the other wrong. In truth we've both been saying the same thing most of the time. I agree that the simple act of having a degree is not conclusive proof of extensive knowledge on a given subject.

Trust me I know. I didn't learn a damn thing in college. Unless you count learning to make a gravity bong.

You are exactly right, bad advice is bad advice no matter who it comes from.

secretlobster

Listen to me, I have a Master's degree in Penguin Physics and I minored in Undeclared

cassieko

Well I'm an RD with a specialty certification in Nutrition Support, so I AM considered an expert in the field and I DO know what I'm talking about... but I usually avoid internet nutrition debates because even though I know what I'm talking about, if someone is convinced of their junk science, logic and facts do precious little to change their minds.

"I can't come to bed yet! Someone is wrong on the internet!"

Acg67

Well I'm an RD with a specialty certification in Nutrition Support, so I AM considered an expert in the field and I DO know what I'm talking about... but I usually avoid internet nutrition debates because even though I know what I'm talking about, if someone is convinced of their junk science, logic and facts do precious little to change their minds.

"I can't come to bed yet! Someone is wrong on the internet!"

I've seen seen quite a few RD's talk about the myth of increased meal frequency has a metabolic advantage and how one must jumpstart one's metabolism by eating breakffast

cassieko

Well that's just embarrassing.

Edit: I guess there are dummies in every field. Some of the best nutrition advice I have read comes from Michael Pollan, a journalist with no nutrition degree.

I can assure you I'm an excellent dietitian