did mozart get a ph d in musicology

did florence nigthingale get a phd in first aid

^just exemple of phony academic intelectual type of degree awarde in UsA

Just too many people who think they are experts (on pretty much everything) simply because they have a PhD (in what, it doesn’t matter) and/or have written a book (on what, it doesn’t matter) .

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/06/world/asia/06contractor.html

The way you politicize science is to pay someone $500 an hour to say exactly what you want them to say. It’s very easy to do. Just Google any scientific consulting firm and give them a call.

How is this a hard concept for a science journalist to grasp?

(For Nullius, the answer boils down to “Trust no one, and be sure to read my F. U. D.).”

There’s a philosophical problem with the idea – it involves an infinite regress.

I’ve discussed this before. (here.) There is a recognised problem that people not trained in the scientific method or critical thinking don’t have the means to judge themselves between competing claims, so what should they do? One solution often proposed is that they should put their trust in an authority – an expert or group of experts. But how do they determine who is an authority? There are, as you note, competing claims. So perhaps what they should do is ask an authority on authorities – somebody who accredits experts and tells you which ones are experts and which ones are fooling you. These include governments, universities, and academic journal editors. But which authorities on authorities should we trust? There are competing claims – some saying such authority authorities have their own biases, others pointing out that putative experts on both sides of the debate have been accredited by universities. And there are good and bad universities. So what we need is someone to tell us which expert accreditors are trustworthy, and which give out accreditation without checking – or for a different domain of expertise. But suppose you find that opinions differ over which universities are the best? Suppose we have competing claims on which authority authority authorities are trustworthy? If it is known that people are going to such web-sites, it would pay someone to set up their own to endorse their own opinions – a lot of them, since numbers count. We need someone to tell us which to trust…

You can see where this is going. Eventually you just get tired of chasing endorsements, and you make a leap of faith. You trust someone because your friends or family do, your political party does, because it’s convenient or comfortable, or simply because that was the point at which you gave up. Argument from Authority is a logical fallacy. That doesn’t mean it isn’t ever useful, but you should never forget that it isn’t reliable.

A better alternative, I think, would be a website teaching critical thinking, scientific method, and how to spot logical fallacies so that you have the means to make judgements based on evidence rather than opinion. That would still not be perfect – otherwise scientists trained in scientific method would not disagree as much as they do – but the scientific method is the best tool we have. You might not be able to teach enough for people to pass judgement on deeply specialised technical material, but you could teach enough to at least judge whether they were using the sorts of methods and care that ought to result in a reliable answer. Or you would at least know what you didn’t know, and remain appropriately uncertain. In science, “I don’t know” can be the right answer.

Could there be a website that solves this problem? Perhaps something like wikipedia or snopes, but maintained by accredited scientists. Is this merely an enormous task, or mission impossible?

I doubt it. Nobody seemed to have a problem finding doctors to advocate smoking in the 1950′s, experts to deny the connection between tobacco and cancer in the 1970′s, racist views on eugenics in the 1930′s, etc.

There are all sorts of institutions in this country claiming to be institutions of higher education. Some are clearly better at it than others. As I see it, some are not, in any conventional sense, even trying.

As one example (at the undergraduate level), one can apparently obtain a “Bachelors of Science Degree in Biochemistry and Molecular Biology” from Bob Jones University. The first two “learning objectives” are:
“Learning Objectives
Explain and defend in writing the biblical philosophy of science.
Explain in writing why science is limited as a way of knowing truth.”
See: http://www.bju.edu/academics/majors/viewmajor.php?id=10362&p=0

“Under Bio 300, Evolution and Origins”, one can study the following:
“Discussion and critical evaluation of the biology and philosophy behind neo- Darwinism (materialism), the intelligent design movement and special creation. Extensive use will be made of a current evolutionary textbook, important recent monographs, scientific journal articles and position statements. The course will engage students in critical thinking and problem solving and prepare them to answer challenges to a biblical world view regarding evolution and origins.”
http://www.bju.edu/academics/courses/?subject=Biology#Bio505

I would have to doubt that they have any accommodationist philosophy in mind.

Here in Colorado, and elsewhere, tuition at public universities is being raised, public education budgets are being slashed, and some school districts are working to implement voucher systems that would force taxpayers to fund students at private, and frequently religious schools. See: http://www.denverpost.com/search/ci_17623486