Physicians and surgeons are not doctors?

Chwirkytheappleboy

Is doing a PhD the only way of acquiring said skills?

Yes. I can't think another way into academic research in the modern age.

Is having a PhD the only way of demonstrating academic ability? If I spend 3 years doing a PhD in David Beckham Studies, will you claim that I have demonstrated academic superiority over a doctor who finds the cure for AIDS, but never did a PhD?

To be fair your argument is spurious as a cure for AIDS would definitely be the result of research work by a large number of people many of whom would most certainly have PhDs. As we don't know the contribution to the project said medic had or the title of the David Beckham studies PhD thesis and its contents then how can we judge?

Not that I care whether medics are better than PhDs or not, but I don't like to see arguments based on untruths.

Reply 61

Chwirkytheappleboy

17

Phugoid

So the lay people are using an outdated system, and the medical professionals today are taking advantage of it dishonestly.

Why are you so hostile about this? I don't think Doctors are being "dishonest" or "taking advantage", they're simply using the title conferred upon them. It's a matter of definition, what are they supposed to do? As I mentioned in one of my much earlier posts in this thread, the term doctor actually has more than one definition (see Dictionary.com):

1. a person licensed to practice medicine, as a physician, surgeon, dentist, or veterinarian.
2. a person who has been awarded a doctor's degree: He is a Doctor of Philosophy.

Reply 62

Chwirkytheappleboy

I suppose it depends on the criteria for your respect. Intelligence aside, you might have regard for the medical doctor because s/he has worked hard throughout school/university/training in order to enter a profession which has a positive impact on society. Conversely you might not respect the homeless person because their circumstances might be a result of their own actions (or inaction)

We're talking about academics, nothing else, since the title 'Doctor' is an academic one. If the homeless person had a PhD, he is more worthy of respect in academic circles than a medical professional with an undergraduate degree.

I would make no assumptions about the innate academic ability of the "homeless hobo" though.

Good. Neither would I. Why then, do you expect me to make assumptions about the medical professionals? Why should they be given the title of 'Dr.' on the assumption that they could, if they tried, gain a Doctorate degree? Until they have that doctorate degree, they should not be given the privileges and rights of an academic doctor, regardless of whether or not they are capable of achieving it.

Is doing a PhD the only way of acquiring said skills?

No, of course not. And ideally, that's how the 'honourary doctorate degree' system should work - to give the title and privileges of 'Dr.' to those who have displayed the skills, but not through the traditional PhD route. Sadly, this system has also been hijacked by celebrity culture and the opinion of the laymen - for example, Jeremy Clarkson is an honorary Doctor of Engineering. This is wrong.

Is having a PhD the only way of demonstrating academic ability? If I spend 3 years doing a PhD in David Beckham Studies, will you claim that I have demonstrated academic superiority over a doctor who finds the cure for AIDS, but never did a PhD?

Lol. First of all, I'm fairly sure that most Doctors involved in advanced research WILL have an research qualification. So its highly likely that the individual who discovers a cure for AIDS will be appropriately qualified in research, whereas most medical doctors with only the undergraduate degree won't touch this kind of work. This qualification, in the UK, is known as the 'MD', and THAT is a 3 year postgraduate research degree which is equivalent to PhD. Clearly, if an undergraduate doctor was of similar academic merit as a PhD from any other subject, then the MD would not exist.

And yes, you're right of course that SOME PhDs are not worth fussing about. But mainly that's differentiable by subject. If we're talking about PROFESSIONAL subjects, such as Engineering, Law, the Sciences, Medicine, etc, then of course a PhD from any of these is greater than an undergraduate from any of these. However, a PhD from Engineering is better than a PhD from say, Theology, and I can point to you a few theses to illustrate this point.

Reply 63

Phugoid

However, a PhD from Engineering is better than a PhD from say, Theology, and I can point to you a few theses to illustrate this point.

I doubt you are qualified to make such a judgement.

Reply 64

Chwirkytheappleboy

17

ChemistBoy

Yes. I can't think another way into academic research in the modern age.

We were talking about skills, not rights to enter a profession

ChemistBoy

To be fair your argument is spurious as a cure for AIDS would definitely be the result of research work by a large number of people many of whom would most certainly have PhDs. As we don't know the contribution to the project said medic had or the title of the David Beckham studies PhD thesis and its contents then how can we judge?

Not that I care whether medics are better than PhDs or not, but I don't like to see arguments based on untruths.

Rather than nitpicking it would be better for you to take what I say in context and understand the point that I am trying to make: doing a PhD is not a demonstration of my academic superiority over a medical doctor; the doctor might have made academic achievements which are not recognised with a PhD

Reply 65

Chwirkytheappleboy

Why are you so hostile about this? I don't think Doctors are being "dishonest" or "taking advantage", they're simply using the title conferred upon them. It's a matter of definition, what are they supposed to do? As I mentioned in one of my much earlier posts in this thread, the term doctor actually has more than one definition (see Dictionary.com):

1. a person licensed to practice medicine, as a physician, surgeon, dentist, or veterinarian.
2. a person who has been awarded a doctor's degree: He is a Doctor of Philosophy.

Yes, the difference is that the first definition refers to a job title - no more exciting than 'mechanic', or 'bin man'. Doctor, in that sense, is a job, not an academic title.

The second definition refers to an academic title.

If this difference was observed, medical doctors would be doctors only by job, and would retain the 'Mr.' or 'Mrs', or 'Ms', and only those with the academic title of Doctor could use 'Dr.'.

Reply 66

Chwirkytheappleboy

17

Phugoid

Good. Neither would I. Why then, do you expect me to make assumptions about the medical professionals? Why should they be given the title of 'Dr.' on the assumption that they could, if they tried, gain a Doctorate degree? Until they have that doctorate degree, they should not be given the privileges and rights of an academic doctor, regardless of whether or not they are capable of achieving it.

Ok good, so if you don't assume that an unqualified homeless hobo is any less intelligent than a doctor, presumably you also won't assume that someone with a PhD is "of higher academic ability" than a doctor.

Reply 67

ChemistBoy

I doubt you are qualified to make such a judgement.

It doesn't take any special skills to recognise that the criteria for gaining a PhD in the sciences/engineering is much more rigorous than for gaining a PhD in Theology.

Having read a few Theology theses, it's clear that if a similar quality of thesis was submitted to a faculty of Science or Engineering, they would be laughed out of the building.

Reply 68

Chwirkytheappleboy

We were talking about skills, not rights to enter a profession

And I am talking about skills. The ability to do academic or related research is a skill. A PhD trains you in that skill. Not all PhD organic chemists go into academia but you still need a PhD to do research and development for a pharma company. A PhD gives you more than a specialist knowledge of your field of study it gives you a set of research skills. I really can't think of any other way to get those skills without undertaking a PhD - this is why medical doctors who enter research more often than not complete one or an MD which also is essentially a research degree in the UK.

Rather than nitpicking it would be better for you to take what I say in context and understand the point that I am trying to make: doing a PhD is not a demonstration of my academic superiority over a medical doctor; the doctor might have made academic achievements which are not recognised with a PhD

They might, but so might the person with a PhD - that's no argument. Life's a journey after all. It's a pretty safe bet, however, that almost all significant contributions to the academy have been made by PhD holders since not long after the degrees were adopted widely in the early 20th century.

Reply 69

DMV

Chwirkytheappleboy

I suppose it depends on the criteria for your respect. Intelligence aside, you might have regard for the medical doctor because s/he has worked hard throughout school/university/training in order to enter a profession which has a positive impact on society. Conversely you might not respect the homeless person because their circumstances might be a result of their own actions (or inaction)

I would make no assumptions about the innate academic ability of the "homeless hobo" though.

Is doing a PhD the only way of acquiring said skills?

Is having a PhD the only way of demonstrating academic ability? If I spend 3 years doing a PhD in David Beckham Studies, will you claim that I have demonstrated academic superiority over a doctor who finds the cure for AIDS, but never did a PhD?

Yes, because they've done the 4 hour oral justifying they're work, the 100,000 word writeup the sheer deadication to they're subject, Medical Doctors don't get this and tbh, if they're PhD was in David becham studies it would fall into a more respected Feild such as Sociology - which is basically all the module is teaching (Media effects and such.)

Whereas the person who was doing the Cure for aids would not gain this Knowledge and would not be able to carry his research out in as much detail, they would probably have to carry on there work to PhD so they can prove that this chemical or whatever is resaponcible for the distruction of the Virus..

Reply 70

Phugoid

It doesn't take any special skills to recognise that the criteria for gaining a PhD in the sciences/engineering is much more rigorous than for gaining a PhD in Theology.

Having read a few Theology theses, it's clear that if a similar quality of thesis was submitted to a faculty of Science or Engineering, they would be laughed out of the building.

Yet the fail rate in the arts is much higher than in the sciences and engineering. I'm afraid I'd have to completely disagree with you on that one. I've seen much worse students be dragged through a PhD by their supervisors in science and engineering than in arts (because they would be just left to crash and burn).

Anyway - why are you reading theology theses? Given that you aren't a theologian it's pretty fair to assume that you are judging the content of these theses in terms of a lay-person. I should think my thesis looks like a load of gobbledegook rubbish to someone who doesn't know my field.

Reply 71

Chwirkytheappleboy

Ok good, so if you don't assume that an unqualified homeless hobo is any less intelligent than a doctor, presumably you also won't assume that someone with a PhD is "of higher academic ability" than a doctor.

I've already corrected my WORDING a while back, are you not reading my posts?

A PhD is a higher qualification than an undergraduate degree in Medicine. The title 'Dr.' should be reserved for those who have acquired the skills demanded of a PhD student to gain his doctorate. Whether you gain those skills traditionally through a PhD, or non-traditionally (through your profession or otherwise, in which case an honorary doctorate should be bestowed) is irrelevant. But you MUST prove that you have those skills SOMEHOW. Simply acquiring an undergraduate medical degree, and doing medical training does not give you these skills, and so the title of 'Dr.' should not be given.

Reply 72

Ataloss

13

Phugoid

Lol. First of all, I'm fairly sure that most Doctors involved in advanced research WILL have an research qualification. So its highly likely that the individual who discovers a cure for AIDS will be appropriately qualified in research, whereas most medical doctors with only the undergraduate degree won't touch this kind of work. This qualification, in the UK, is known as the 'MD', and THAT is a 3 year postgraduate research degree which is equivalent to PhD. Clearly, if an undergraduate doctor was of similar academic merit as a PhD from any other subject, then the MD would not exist.

Close but not quite right. :wink:

Reply 73

DMV

Phugoid

It doesn't take any special skills to recognise that the criteria for gaining a PhD in the sciences/engineering is much more rigorous than for gaining a PhD in Theology.

Having read a few Theology theses, it's clear that if a similar quality of thesis was submitted to a faculty of Science or Engineering, they would be laughed out of the building.

You can get through a Arts PD with opinion though, which isn't the case with a Science PhD, you need to present concreate evidance that this element is the rule.

Reply 74

DMV

You can get through a Arts PD with opinion though, which isn't the case with a Science PhD, you need to present concreate evidance that this element is the rule.

Well isn't that the difference between the sciences and the arts? Doesn't mean that science can probe the questions the arts asks and is therefore better.

Reply 75

morecambebay

DMV

You can get through a Arts PD with opinion though, which isn't the case with a Science PhD, you need to present concreate evidance that this element is the rule.

wrong.

Reply 76

ChemistBoy

Yet the fail rate in the arts is much higher than in the sciences and engineering. I'm afraid I'd have to completely disagree with you on that one. I've seen much worse students be dragged through a PhD by their supervisors in science and engineering than in arts (because they would be just left to crash and burn).

Most probably because the criteria is 'fuzzy' in the arts, as it is even at a high school level.

Anyway - why are you reading theology theses? Given that you aren't a theologian it's pretty fair to assume that you are judging the content of these theses in terms of a lay-person. I should think my thesis looks like a load of gobbledegook rubbish to someone who doesn't know my field.

Honestly, I was reading them for a laugh, because they are ludicrous. Allow me to provide an example. Draw your attention, please, to the first sentence of the Abstract of "The Bible and its modern methods: interpretation between art and text", a thesis written by Morse, Benjamin L. in 2008, gaining him the PhD at Glasgow University. It reads, as follows (with key words highlighted):

"The dissertation pushes the boundaries of biblical interpretation by formulating relationships between passages of the Hebrew Bible and unrelated works of Modern art."

Regardless of what subject you do, if the principle aim of your research is to draw relationships between things which are NOT RELATED, you should fail, and be laughed out of academia. This is not a case of me having a limited understanding of theology, or a skewed perspective of research. This is simply the case of absolute nonsense being passed as appropriate for attainment of a Doctorate degree. It is a disgrace.

Imagine, for a moment, that the first line of my Aeronautical Engineering thesis read as follows:

"The dissertation pushes the boundaries of computational fluid dynamics by formulating relationships between the lift coefficients of NACA airfoils and unrelated number of bananas imported from Thailand."

Reply 77

DMV

ChemistBoy

Well isn't that the difference between the sciences and the arts? Doesn't mean that science can probe the questions the arts asks and is therefore better.

You can tackle a Question about the Body and soul Distiction in both Sciene and Philosophy and get the same answer, Science will have juat put evidance about Genes in.

Reply 78