Settle an argument I had with my father today.

[novapsyche]

[Poll #272603]

Comments

[arjuna.livejournal.com]

It's obvious you don't think so from the wording of the question: "Just because". I think if a person dedicated that much amount of time and energy studying something they know a lot more about that subject than a person who just learns about it in their spare time. That doesn't mean that a person who does not have a PhD or has not written a book does not know what they're talking about. It just means that a person who has worked hard to write the book does because those activities require knowledge. Unless, in rare circumstances, the person was just writing something from a really biased perspective in which case they don't know what they're talking about but I think that's a minority of the cases. Most people who write books or study are required to investigate different perspectives. So I think the question was unfairly leading and probably will pressure people into saying no.

[virika.livejournal.com]

Yup, that is why so many books become contested and priven wrong, because the person knew what they were talking about, eh?

my question is, just because someone DOESN'T have a degree, does that mean they don't know as much as a doctor or degreed person?

[liquidgrey.livejournal.com]

it seems to me a degree only indicates how much effort one is willing to put forth to espouse the propaganda of consensus reality, and if one is willing to give enough energy to the system such that they then respond by giving that person their stamp of approval (as in: "thanks for your time/effort/money - you're now a Ph.D!")

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Okay, my position has been sniffed out, but I'll explain the back story a little.

My dad heard this woman speak at his job. She was talking about neuroscience and apparently specifically said that "they" (I assume this means "scientists") have discovered "where thought originates". She also said that they've discovered that one of the causes of Alzheimer's is depression.

I told my dad that I find her findings highly suspect, as I've been following neuroscience, neuroanatomy and neurophysiology as an armchair scholar for about four years now. No one knows how thoughts originate; how can they say where it originates? Also, Alzheimer's is a big black hole as far as research is concerned--they're discovering ways to keep it at bay, but the cause is still unknown.

My dad was annoyed because I was skeptical. I said that "facts" need to be checked against other established facts. He disagreed with me; "as long as it works, I don't need to know how it works. I don't need to know how this car works, as long as it gets me from point A to point B."

I respectfully (well, perhaps not respectfully) disagreed with him.

[euziere.livejournal.com]

No, of course not. But they are more likely to know what they're talking about, as long as it's in their field of specialization, than someone who does not have a degree in that field. All other things being equal, trust the person with the degree.

[kali-ma.livejournal.com]

Hmmm... I would add that they don't neccessarily know, but they should probably know more than the average person - but having a PhD does not make one infallible.

well...

[guy-de-bored.livejournal.com]

Dr. Nick Herbert in "Elemental Mind" IMHO *has* figured out where thought originates...

it ties into Dr. James T. Culbertson and his 'space time reductive materialism' and the philosophical and experimental (and generally ignored) implications of quantum mechanics and M-theory.

and this ain't no wishy washy new age tao of wu li crap, either!

and...

[guy-de-bored.livejournal.com]

PhD in general are too specialized. They are trapped in their specific field. They are immensely qualified to answer (in most cases) very specific questions of their little area of Knowledge.

It takes an increasingly rare kind of person - the old school "Renaissance Man" to answer (or even attempt to answer) the Big Questions like ... where does thought originate.

Interdisciplinary studies are being dismantled left and right, in favor of specialization. This is a dire tragedy for science and human culture in general.

[xiombarg.livejournal.com]

Particularly if whatever they're talking about is outside their field.

That is, I'd be very inclined to believe that a particular disease can be transmitted via coughing if told to me by someone with a PhD in Airborn Diseases who wrote a book on the subject, while I wouldn't believe them about, say, the morality of recent US actions in Iraq, any more than any other person.

Even then, that's no guarantee they're right, even in their field -- it's just highly likely they're right.

[xiombarg.livejournal.com]

And reading your comments above, I think that "where thought originates" is partially, but not 100%, in the field of neuroscience. I think the lady may be right that she has a clue where thought originates, in the limited way she probably defines thought, but not as other people might think about it.

I'd have to see studies on the whole depression issue.

Read my response fully before you respond

[arjuna.livejournal.com]

I can't stress this enough: If you're going to respond to someone's comment on a LJ at least do them the justice of READING what they wrote. I said clearly in my comment that people who do not have degrees may still know what they're talking about especially if they have done reading, have experience in the field, or have good old common sense. I think I made it clear that in some cases these people may know as much as or more than people with PhDs in the subject matter which is why some people are given honorary degrees for their other outstanding qualities.

Second of all your comment that some people's books have been contested or proven wrong does not address the question. Some people have written books using the limited knowledge they've gained and drawn incorrect or biased conclusions. I made allowances for that as well in my original reply which you disrespectfully ignored. To quote myself again "Most people who write books or study are required to investigate different perspectives." This makes for good scholarship. If that is the case then I think people who have been proven wrong still know what they're talking about it's just that human knowledge has been expanded due to new findings and new research. Old science leads and paves the way towards new science, You can't stop progress, etc. etc. etc. I don't think I need to illustrate how this happens. People who write books and get degrees amass knowledge as a profession. It requires thought, hard work and research. The deserve credit for what they've accomplished. Their opinions or conclusions may not always be valid but they did work hard to gather information to draw those theories together and therefore know what they're talking about as opposed to someone who has not been keeping themselves on top of recent up to the minute papers or research or spend significant time studying, reading, or gaining experience in the field. All these things are requirements to get a PhD or write a book for the most part. I do acknowledge there are exceptions.

So finally in the case of novapsche's example of the origins of thought and various diseases in nueroscience she has a good case to state her opinion because she has done extensive research in the subject matter but I still think those people who deidicate their lives to that subject matter deserve a little respect.

[arjuna.livejournal.com]

Like I said in the previous post since you've done research reading in the subject for an extended period of time your opinion has more weight than say mine but that doesn't mean you should disregard the opinions of people who have written books or gotten PhDs. They may be speaking about research you're not familiar with. It's possible that new research have come up or they may be postulating theories based on real experience in the field that you do not have. Before you say they're wrong and they're being elitist to dare to defy what you know to be true you should investigate this further. We're all prone to error and it's possible that one of the causes of Alzheimer's is depression. I mean maybe they've talked to and interviewed and worked with many patients and determined this based on observation. Personally I think that makes sense to me. Depression in my mind seems like a likely cause of some of the symptoms of Alzheimer's. At the very least I think there may be a connection between the two. Also I've found myself questioning the logic and validity of a few of the articles you've posted on your LJ like the one where the article claimed it could vocalize thought or soemthing. That seemed outrageous. And yet you seemed to be okay with that. For that reason I seem to think may they have found out more about where thought originates. I mean who knows. I'd have to read up on it but I don't think it's impossible. I do have my doubts about vocalizations of thoughts that have not been spoken though. Or maybe I misunderstood that article. That was a while back. Anyways, I digress in any event. Hope you understood my point.

Re: Read my response fully before you respond

[virika.livejournal.com]

I wasn't suggesting that you said otherwise, I was stating that I think a better question is if people who dont have degrees can still know what they are talking about.
Coming from a crowd of eternal students, i know how had people work and dedicate themselves. i do respect people and their positions. i just dont think that because you have a phd and spent 30 years studying a single gene means you are infallable in your knowledge when it comes to that gene.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

Actually, I can believe the Alzheimer's-depression link, only because I saw it in my aunt's last two years. At the same time, the skeptic in me says to read her just as I would read any other scientist. *shrug*

Apparently, she's affiliated with http://www.feedyourbrain.org/. I'd still have to read her books and get her information firsthand.

I guess what I was trying to get across to my dad is that you just can't trust the experts; you have to put their information against that of what's come before. I was talking science, and it seemed he was talking pragmatics.

[lordofgaysantas.livejournal.com]

Especially when it comes to the arts, a successful, respected career is a better sign of one's competence than any degree.