Questioning the Credibility of Scientific Theories and Researchers

  • Thread starter shintashi
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Ph.d
In summary, the conversation goes like this: have you ever wondered about a conversation that goes like this? You don't even understand the math, and your opponent points out that you don't have a Ph.D. and you should know that (so and so) is a genius which means your words are (fill in cursing).
  • #1
shintashi
117
1
have you ever wondered about a conversation that goes like this

" how can you prove (fill in blank) wrong ? you don't even understand the math "

" who supports you in the community ? Are you respected ? "


" Do you have a Ph.D ? Why should I believe your theories ?"


" Look up MIT (conjoint project) That's me in the blue shirt "


" You should know that (so and so) is a genius) which means your words are (fill in cursing) "
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
State your point.
 
  • #3
We live in a world in which you can spend every minute of every day arguing crackpot theories with some nobody. If somebody has credentials, and you don't, why should I listen to you instead of him.

If you don't have the knowledge base (mathematics) to understand why you might be wrong, why should I bother to listen to you. When I make a proposition, the first critic who must be convinced is me. If you lack the basic education in the subject matter, your first critic is unqualified to refute your argument.

Njorl
 
  • #4
Basic Knowledge

I would also add that "basic knowledge" is not all its cracked up to me.

Sometimes basic knowledge = basic indoctrination, and therefore preconceives and filters any alternative view on subjects hitherto misunderstood.

In maths, basic knowledge IS essential.

In theoretical subjects/cutting-edge stuff, basic knowledge can often be a handicap...
 
  • #5
Njorl said:
the first critic who must be convinced is me. If you lack the basic education in the subject matter, your first critic is unqualified to refute your argument.

Njorl


This, I like. Very Much. :approve:
 
  • #6
RE: "Sometimes basic knowledge = basic indoctrination, and therefore preconceives and filters any alternative view on subjects hitherto misunderstood."

Just about everyone that has crafted new profound theories had solid foundations in basic knowledge. You don't think Planck knew statistical mechanics? You don't think Heisenberg and Bohr and Born and Pauli knew classical mechanics?

Newton was right, you make new discoveries by standing on the shoulders of giants. But you need to climb on their shoulders first, and such an elevation in understanding requires solid instruction in basic knowledge.

I am trying to conjure a single name of someone who formulated a profound theory that didn't know the basic knowledge of the related subject matter, and I am drawing a blank.
 
  • #7
How about einstein?
 
  • #8
Einstein had an excellent education in Physics. Though his math was a bit weak. The reason he was working in a patent office was due to a personality conflict with a professor at his university. he was unable to get a recommendation for a position at a university.
 
  • #9
BTW, in the germanic university systems of the time (including Netherlands, Austria-Hungary and Switzerland) you didn't normally get a university position after your PhD. You went off and taught secondary school or something (patent office) for a few years, and then did a bigger and better thesis called a Habilitation, which if you passed got you to an unpaid lecturing postion at the university called a Private Docent (Privatdozent). Then if you shaped up you could start up the faculty ladder. Einstein got so famous with his publications that he was able to bypass this normal career path, except just at the start. He seems to have always avoided teaching when he could.
 
  • #10
Einstein in fact did teach math and physics at the secondary level.

RE: "How about einstein?"

I would think someone with a Ph.D. from the University of Zurich with a dissertation titled "On a New Determination of Molecular Dimensions" would know something about physics fundamentals.
 
  • #11
instead of getting bogged down in what a bunch of hairless monkey's think is proper- or worry about these monkey's cliques and primitive group behaviors- I simply look at an Idea and judge it by my own sense of feel/logic- [more often then not however- ideas which come without a solid root in established mathematics/physics often flail and die when poked with the horse**** probe]

a human being can come up with revelations- but typically it's a lucky memetic accident- just the right memes in the right neural nets emerge something interesting/useful- but don't try to give credit to the monkey- who would be masturbating and rutting around in it's own feces if it weren't for some serious social programming-

___________________________

/:set\AI transmedia laboratories

http://setai-transmedia.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #12
Tone it down setAI. You can make your point without the colorful language.
 
  • #13
Admit it, Ivan. You like it when he says 'monkey'.
 

1. What do you mean by "My Ph.D is bigger than yours"?

"My Ph.D is bigger than yours" is a phrase commonly used in a joking manner among academics to compare the prestige or significance of their doctoral degrees. It is not meant to be taken seriously.

2. How can one determine if a Ph.D is "bigger" than another?

There is no objective measure of the size or importance of a Ph.D, as it is a highly individualized and specialized degree. It is also important to recognize that a Ph.D does not define a person's intelligence, worth, or capabilities.

3. Is having a "bigger" Ph.D more valuable?

No, the value of a Ph.D is not determined by its size or perceived prestige. What matters most is the quality of research and the impact it has on the field of study.

4. Does having a "bigger" Ph.D make a person more successful?

Success is subjective and cannot be solely attributed to the size of a Ph.D. Factors such as dedication, hard work, and opportunities also play a significant role in one's success.

5. Why do people feel the need to compare the size of their Ph.D?

In some cases, this phrase may be used in a playful and lighthearted manner among colleagues. However, it is important to recognize that comparing the size of one's Ph.D can perpetuate a toxic academic culture and contribute to feelings of inadequacy or insecurity. It is important to focus on the merits of one's own research and not engage in unhealthy comparisons.

Similar threads

Replies
9
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
16
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
4
Views
659
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
99
  • STEM Career Guidance
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • STEM Academic Advising
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Back
Top