[jordancurve]

I bet my little brother $20 that there is at least one person, currently alive, with a hard science Ph.D who argues that the earth is flat. Can anyone here point me to such a person?

[Pete Svarrior]

Given that the core FE community is fairly reluctant to share their personal information, I doubt you'll find your challenge met here. You might have better luck asking around the Twitter fringes, but I suspect you'll simply find many people who claim to have PhD's, without much will to back their position up.

[gurnb]

Given that the core FE community is fairly reluctant to share their personal information, I doubt you'll find your challenge met here. You might have better luck asking around the Twitter fringes, but I suspect you'll simply find many people who claim to have PhD's, without much will to back their position up.

So...no one is willing to put their academic reputation on the line to back the FE theory?  Or, perhaps, there is no one who is highly educated that believes the FE theory?

[Pete Svarrior]

So...no one is willing to put their academic reputation on the line to back the FE theory?  Or, perhaps, there is no one who is highly educated that believes the FE theory?

Alternatively, exactly what I said is the case, with no hidden meanings or clauses. That said, you might want to pay attention to the fact that a PhD is a research qualification, not a level of education.

[DuncanDoenitz]

OK Pete, "pay attention to the fact that a PhD is a research qualification, not a level of education". 

I see.  So is Batchelor of "I Was Taught This", better or worse than Doctor of "I Researched This Myself from Source Material". 

Hmm. 

[Pete Svarrior]

Batchelor

When you try to mock people for their education, make sure you're not too revealing about your own shortcomings.

So is Batchelor of "I Was Taught This", better or worse than Doctor of "I Researched This Myself from Source Material".

Let's start by helping you understand what a doctorate actually is. Reading source material is rarely research, except maybe in the humanities. Research is about generating new knowledge in a highly specialist area, and a PhD is an entry-level qualification in doing that within academia. It is not "better" or "worse" than other career choices, as far as education goes. There are people with doctorates whose level of education is lower than that of people without doctorates. As such, using a PhD as a level of education isn't very useful.

[gurnb]

So...no one is willing to put their academic reputation on the line to back the FE theory?  Or, perhaps, there is no one who is highly educated that believes the FE theory?

Alternatively, exactly what I said is the case, with no hidden meanings or clauses. That said, you might want to pay attention to the fact that a PhD is a research qualification, not a level of education.

I see.  So let's argue over semantics; however, I would propose that anyone with a PhD is "highly" educated.  True that those who have PhDs are granted that status by virtue of original research and discovery.  However, you can't get to that point (at least at any accredited institution of which I am aware) without being "highly" educated.  By that I mean a significant amount of post graduate coursework BEFORE proposing your research topic.  I know from which I speak...and I believe the earth is round.

[ChrisTP]

I don't want to speak for Pete but I think what he may mean (or at least I am of the opinion of, and I think he is too) that having a PhD in anything doesn't make that person "smart" it just makes them potentially intelligent in their very specic field of research. For example, my ex has a phd, and I dropped out of college, I can still beat her at chess 100% of the time.

[Pete Svarrior]

By that I mean a significant amount of post graduate coursework BEFORE proposing your research topic.

I can immediately see that you're exclusively familiar with US academia. I'll try to "translate" the rest of my post into something understandable, but you should be careful when assuming that different countries have similar requirements to yours. They don't.

I proposed a research topic, had it accepted, but did not complete it. I found myself intensely disinterested in academic research after a while, and I stayed on as a research candidate for entirely too long while lying to myself that it's good for me. I did a lot of teaching, but my research slowly ground to a halt. Eventually, I chose to move on and do things I enjoy instead.

Under your categorisation, is my education equivalent to that of a doctor?

Finally, I know people who completed their doctorate without completing the taught part of an MSc/MEng (or without one at all). They were, quite literally, exposed to less formal education than I was. This, in particular, is why I find the conflation of the two to be useless. A PhD is a great accomplishment, but it is not a level of education.

I also agree with ChrisTP's comment - I would argue that a PhD is much more a career choice than a qualification of competency.

To be very clear: none of this is a comment against the system. It's just important not to misattribute accomplishments between their categories.