My acceptance that someone with an advanced degree posits factually in their field of expertise is

[marduc]

I am trying not to taint the results so keeping it as simple as I can, on a scale of 1 to 10 how readily do you accept published papers, statements or positions directly related to an individuals advanced degree(s).

 

[Your Star]

I give them more weight, yes. Particularly in fields that I know little about. We should trust experts, generally. There should always be skepticism, of course; a climate scientist receiving funding from Exxon Mobile looses all credibility, for example. And having an advanced degree myself, I am more comfortable criticizing and critiquing the work in my field, and I've read a lot of books from PhD's who are astoundingly myopic.

So yes, we should generally trust experts, but context matters. If other experts, the majority of experts, in said field disagree with one person, then it is safe for the layman to assume that the outlier is wrong. There is also biases, financial, political, etc, that need to be taken into account.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I am trying not to taint the results so keeping it as simple as I can, on a scale of 1 to 10 how readily do you accept published papers, statements or positions directly related to an individuals advanced degree(s).

This is not a simple, nor easy question. It can depend on many things.

1. The quality of the educational background.

2. The methodology used to arrive at the conclusion.

3. The supporting evidence.

4. How and by whom was the study funded.

5. The professional reputation of the individual publishing the information.

6. Peer review, if any.

7. Personal evaluation of the publication.

 

[marduc]

This is not a simple, nor easy question. It can depend on many things.

1. The quality of the educational background.

2. The methodology used to arrive at the conclusion.

3. The supporting evidence.

4. How and by whom was the study funded.

5. The professional reputation of the individual publishing the information.

6. Peer review, if any.

7. Personal evaluation of the publication.

I agree on all of the above.

Tough to do with this question, but trying to keep it as generic as possible.

 

[Atomic Kid]

I am trying not to taint the results so keeping it as simple as I can, on a scale of 1 to 10 how readily do you accept published papers, statements or positions directly related to an individuals advanced degree(s).

WTF are you even talking about?

 

[StillBallin75]

I've learned increasingly not to trust anyone who fancies themselves a foreign policy expert in America. Especially those who argue for more intervention, more meddling, and less leaving people the **** alone.

 

[MamboDervish]

There are some fields of academic study in which I have great confidence in the opinions or conclusions of highly credentialed persons. Other fields of academic study? Not so much.

 

[marduc]

WTF are you even talking about?

It is spelled out quite clearly you quoted it.

 

[AGENT J]

an INDIVIDUAL having an advanced degree alone isnt really enough info
so many other factors where it might matter and it might not.
Im an engineer myself and have encountered people with less education/experience that are smarter/know more and people with more education/experience who know less

now when it comes to a consensus or many studies or field acceptance thats different

 

[Atomic Kid]

As to what exactly? That isn't spelled out at all. There are many people with degrees in various fields. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are are the hands down experts in their particular field of study. For instance are we to trust the expert opinion of someone whose opinions or postulations have not been peer reviewed or independently verified?

 

[marduc]

As to what exactly? That isn't spelled out at all. There are many people with degrees in various fields. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are are the hands down experts in their particular field of study. For instance are we to trust the expert opinion of someone whose opinions or postulations have not been peer reviewed or independently proven?

"Keeping it as simple as I can" - you quoted it

The intention is to get a general feel towards acedamia, and the level of trust therein. I am trying to keep it as neutral as possible. Get it?

 

[Atomic Kid]

"Keeping it as simple as I can" - you quoted it

The intention is to get a general feel towards acedamia, and the level of trust therein. I am trying to keep it as neutral as possible. Get it?

I don't know wtf it is you're talking about either. All that is coming across is a bunch of nonsensical gibberish.

 

[marduc]

I don't know wtf it is you're talking about either. All that is coming across is a bunch of nonsensical gibberish.

Then why are you bothering to reply? Others have comprehended and replied constructively. Who is "either" it's just been you.

 

[Lycanthrope]

I give them more weight, yes. Particularly in fields that I know little about. We should trust experts, generally. There should always be skepticism, of course; a climate scientist receiving funding from Exxon Mobile looses all credibility, for example. And having an advanced degree myself, I am more comfortable criticizing and critiquing the work in my field, and I've read a lot of books from PhD's who are astoundingly myopic.

So yes, we should generally trust experts, but context matters. If other experts, the majority of experts, in said field disagree with one person, then it is safe for the layman to assume that the outlier is wrong. There is also biases, financial, political, etc, that need to be taken into account.

well said

 

[post]

I am trying not to taint the results so keeping it as simple as I can, on a scale of 1 to 10 how readily do you accept published papers, statements or positions directly related to an individuals advanced degree(s).

News about Straka Cell CPAC​

bing.com/news


Marjorie Taylor Greene prayed over a convicted Capitol rioter who spent a day crying in a mock prison cell at CPAC
Marjorie Taylor Greene joined a …
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=c059...c2luZXNzaW5zaWRlci5jb20mRk9STT1OV0JDTE0&ntb=1
RWE have a long, verified track record of making the advanced degrees they've earned meaningless in service to political expediency.

'Stop the Steal' speaker Brandon Straka gave FBI info on rally organizers, more than a dozen others as part of plea deal

Newly unsealed filings detail aspects of the "significant information" Brandon Straka provided the DOJ in a deal to avoid a felony charge from the Capitol riot.

web.archive.org

'Stop the Steal' speaker Brandon Straka gave FBI info on rally organizers, more than a dozen others as part of plea deal​

Newly unsealed filings detail aspects of the "significant information" Brandon Straka provided the DOJ in a deal to avoid a felony charge from the Capitol riot.
Jordan Fischer
July 28, 2022
Updated: July 29, 2022
"...Straka also gave contact information and other details about members of a “Stop the Steal” text thread that included, according to Dornan’s memo, Alexander and other right-wing personalities with large social media followings. As well, Dornan said, Straka provided unspecified information about Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin and anti-vax Dr. Simone Gold, who are both affiliated with America’s Frontline Doctors. Gold, like Straka, was charged in connection with the riot and pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor count of entering and remaining in a restricted building. She was sentenced in June to 60 days in jail and a $9,500 fine. ..."

Simone Gold - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"..Reactions from the medical community​

Gold has been criticized for her views surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines. Jeffrey Koplan, an epidemiologist, vice president for Global Health at Emory University, and former head of the CDC, said, "She and her organization show a willful ignorance of science and the scientific method, as well as a disrespect for accomplished scientific institutions and brilliant scientists." Director of Columbia University's Pandemic Resource and Response Initiative Irwin Redlener called Gold a "toxic purveyor of misinformation, now actively contributing to rightwing extremist rhetoric that continues to rile up people determined to hang on to the most egregious Donald Trump lies." .."

 

[washunut]

I am trying not to taint the results so keeping it as simple as I can, on a scale of 1 to 10 how readily do you accept published papers, statements or positions directly related to an individuals advanced degree(s).

Simply stated trust has to be earned, not bestowed. Having an advanced degree talks to level of education not intelligence.

One example may be the statements made by the Federal Reserve regarding inflation. The Fed employs many PHD's to make these forecasts. Forecasts that the Chairman of the Fed admits where horribly wrong in 2021 and will have an adverse impact on our economy for some time.

In personal experience, I missed out on a manager's job as the other candidate had MBAs from two of the 5 best schools in America. A year later I got the job as the fellow with the fancy MBAs was fired, he could not do the job.

 

[STUT]

I am trying not to taint the results so keeping it as simple as I can, on a scale of 1 to 10 how readily do you accept published papers, statements or positions directly related to an individuals advanced degree(s).

I tend to defer to those with advanced degrees on subjects on which I have little to no formal training or education. Having done the work myself, I know what it takes to obtain an advanced degree, so I usually trust information coming from PhDs (assuming theyre not schlepping for some massive conglomerate; money corrupts all, even scientists)

 

[Individual]

Trust, but verify.

 

[RetiredUSN]

For the most part, I don't believe what people say or write. I'd rather wait and see how much of what they write ends up being fact or debunked.

Experts in their fields often get it wrong too.

 

[soylentgreen]

I have to admit. When Yoda said beware the dark side, I did not question it.

 

[washunut]

I tend to defer to those with advanced degrees on subjects on which I have little to no formal training or education. Having done the work myself, I know what it takes to obtain an advanced degree, so I usually trust information coming from PhDs (assuming theyre not schlepping for some massive conglomerate; money corrupts all, even scientists)

Sounds like you deferred to the dozens of PHDs who told us inflation was "transitory". How is that working out for the country?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I give them more weight, yes. Particularly in fields that I know little about. We should trust experts, generally. There should always be skepticism, of course; a climate scientist receiving funding from Exxon Mobile looses all credibility, for example. And having an advanced degree myself, I am more comfortable criticizing and critiquing the work in my field, and I've read a lot of books from PhD's who are astoundingly myopic.

What you really mean here is you disbelieve any expertise that goes against your political ideology. You wouldn’t apply any such criticism to leftist funded research that purports to show a massive reordering of society that happens to coincide with leftist policy goals is necessary because OMG the earth will be 1 degree warmer in 100 years.

Which is what pretty much everyone believes, they only believe in expertise insofar as it lines up with political interests

 

[post]

What you really mean here is you disbelieve any expertise that goes against your political ideology. You wouldn’t apply any such criticism to leftist funded research that purports to show a massive reordering of society that happens to coincide with leftist policy goals is necessary because OMG the earth will be 1 degree warmer in 100 years.

Which is what pretty much everyone believes, they only believe in expertise insofar as it lines up with political interests

When there is consensus, as there overwhelmingly is in the example in your post, what is your reasonable point? Why does your post indicate resentment to the degree of bitterness contradictory to the unreasonableness of your opinion?

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"There is a strong scientific consensus that the Earth is warming and that this warming is mainly caused by human activities. This consensus is supported by various studies of scientists' opinions and by position statements of scientific organizations, many of which explicitly agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis reports.

Nearly all actively publishing climate scientists (97–100%) say humans are causing climate change.[4][5] Surveys of the scientific literature are another way to measure scientific consensus. A 2019 review of scientific papers found the consensus on the cause of climate change to be at 100%,[2] and a 2021 study concluded that over 99% of scientific papers agree on the human cause of climate change.[3] The small percentage of papers that disagreed with the consensus either cannot be replicated or contain errors.[6] ..."

Scientific Consensus - Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet​

Scientific Consensus: Earth's Climate is Warming

Most leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing the position that climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.

climate.nasa.gov

• Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations

 

[multivita-man]

I am trying not to taint the results so keeping it as simple as I can, on a scale of 1 to 10 how readily do you accept published papers, statements or positions directly related to an individuals advanced degree(s).

I initially misunderstood the question.

I'd say I trust most academic papers with the proviso that most academic papers will typically add disclaimers at the end that more research is required. One paper doesn't establish a hypothesis as a sound theory - that's why there's peer review and so forth.

Sometimes, hypotheses that start out strong and gain acceptance initially are later challenged by either new data or someone who actually asks the right questions and reveals flaws in methodology. The recent revelations on Alzheimers research are an example of this.

Keep in mind that flawed papers aren't always the result of nefarious intent - sometimes it takes a critical person or two who actually has a really good grasp on a subject to point out why established work should be rethought.

 

[SMTA]

I am trying not to taint the results so keeping it as simple as I can, on a scale of 1 to 10 how readily do you accept published papers, statements or positions directly related to an individuals advanced degree(s).

Academics are generally not trusted by people who do not have advanced degrees, nor any higher education.
It’s usually due to jealously, ignorance, or just plain negativity for ideas that challenge their views