Has anyone here had experiences within academia (or not), where people with a Ph.D. in one field overstep his or her expertise into another field (perhaps related or used in his main area of specialty) but won’t admit it when they’re wrong? Personally, I listened to an engineer give a (low-key) lecture on probability, but he used his Ph.D. in engineering to justify why he wasn’t wrong when he misspoke about probability. I understand engineering uses math, stats, and probability at times, but I wouldn’t say this makes someone an expert in these disciplines. I’ve also seen (on numerous occasions) that professors/instructors, even the tenured ones, refuse to admit when they failed to provide a correct solution on a test (not even through regrades for students, not like I’m asking for an open “I screwed up” statement).
I consider these people experts in their respective fields, and I do realize some of them may be experts in things not directly in their field (i.e. engineers using mathematics as a tool, but it’s not a mathematics degree, exactly), but I don’t see why some of them use the “I have a Ph.D. in Z, therefore, you shouldn’t question me in Y,” argument.
Anyone else have experiences like these (interested to hear from those in academia, particularly)?
I think I have actually read some of his stuff. It was a pretty bad article, if I recall, but he could have good articles that I haven’t read.
That’s a pretty spot on example of what I was referencing. He went to a good school to get a Ph.D. But, as you hinted, he has less credibility in economics than he does in linguistics.
Bill Nye the Science Guy puts himself out as a climate change expert because he’s “The Science Guy”. He has a BS in mechanical engineering.
There is a valuation partner in one of the Big 4 with a PhD in electrical engineering who makes note of his PhD whenever anyone disagrees with him, of course never noting that it is in electrical engineering not finance.
Probably pointing to the fact that he is smarter than most everyone else (which he most likely is) although you are correct in any specific instance it doesnt make him more/less correct
That’s hard to say. A lot of PhDs don’t mention it unless you challenge their credentials in their field of study. So you probably have met lots of PhDs without knowing it. It’s the ones who regularly bring it up who are most likely to overstep.
That said, a big part of what makes a PhD valuable is the training in logic and evidence and the need to consider any explanations against alternatives. The rules of evidence vary somewhat between disciplines. For example, interpretation is mostly a curiosity in the natural sciences, but constitutes much of the show in the humanities.
So if the issue is about logical thinking, a PhD still carries a lot of weight outside of the native discipline. If the issue is deep knowledge of a specific subject, then it carries weight mostly in its own discipline, unless there is evidence to show that the person has researched this other topic considerably.
Personally, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect an engineering PhD to have an exceptionally strong grasp of mathematics and statistics, and even a much deeper than average understanding of probability, even if it’s not quite as deep as a mathematics PhD would have. What might be missing from the engineering PhDs toolbox is how the softer sciences use statistics and what kinds of adjustments they need to make for the fact that their data doesn’t always come for experimentation or randomized samples, and how they deal with categorical and ordinal data.
Definitely need to know where the PhD was earned and in what discipline. Seems PhDs in education are earned at the gum ball machine. Truly stands for Push Here Dummy.
Correct me if I am wrong but from what I understand a PhD represents a vert narrow but deep research within a field, by no means it signifies that the person is an expert on other matters relating to his PhD. People don’t realize how narrow your field of research for PhD can be.
I think in fields lile Accounting or OR where the knowledge is not vast a Phd may claim knowledge on the whole field, however I am sure a phd in any stem field can know next to nothing about some other topic within his own field.
PhDs are a strange tribe. Most of us are used to being the highest academic performers in the room (if we didn;t have a comparative advantage in academia, we wouldn’t be here). So unfortunately, it tends to go to our heards (just like being among the best in almost any field does).
For some, the PhD comes with a pretty good knowledge of just how much they don’t know. For others, it comes with even more of an attitude. And there’s certainly no shortage of that int the field.
My sense is that in almost any field where you’re used to people looking up to you and asking you for knowledge in your field, there’s a tendency to forget that your knowledge/competence is only limited to that sphere.
Because of my son;s medical issues, I spent a lot of time with doctors - they can also be pretty opinionated (as can lawyers).
True, I guess I was referring to settings where it’s usually obvious who has what credentials (a lecture/seminar/on a campus/work setting).
I think thats definitely true; it provides you with a skillset in logical thought. It’s disappointing how many PhDs I’ve encountered, though, that are so closed off to looking at evidence. For example, a student told a professor that a highly regarded textbook in the field had concept xyz, and the professor responded that there was no such idea of xyz. When asked if the professor could help the student understand the text, the prof. said that the student is just misunderstanding and went on a tanget about what the student might be confused about (rather than actually looking at the book).
I also agree that an engineer PhD should have a much stronger grasp of those topics, especially relative to the average person with a college degree. In recent times, I have actually had 2 experiences with PhD engineers who both were blatantly wrong regarding something in probability and statistics (and I’m talking at a rudimentary level). This could be my experience though, but it served as an example. To be clear, I would, overall, consider a PhD engineer as an expert in engineering, math/stats/probability over most people, except PhDs in those fields (for my opinion).
This make pretty good sense. Thanks for the insight. I would almost expect that because someone understands what it means to have the credential, he would be more open to hearing a train of thought or looking at evidence before dismissing someone else, especially another individual who is (typically) regarded as more of an expert on the subject matter.
These groups are definitely guilty of overstepping as well (it’s pretty much any field that you can find this). I think it’s perfectly fine to be opinionated and strong in a belief, but I don’t get the lack of respect when someone with the specialized knowledge is completely disregarded because “I have a degree too!”
One ought to note that to have a PhD you need an IQ ABOVE 135-145 ,So most people are below this level of intelligence as brain power. Also there was one study done that said if you are brought in a house where people read alot and have many books you are more likely to get a PhD ,So as a kid most people will have read more books if they have a Phd so they are more likely to be correct ,this does not mean correct but just politically correct.
While I don’t doubt that the average IQ is likely larger among PhD holders, I don’t know where your number is coming from, and I certainly know that you don’t need an IQ that high to obtain a PhD (I would say it depends on the field of study, but I would also guess that an IQ of 115 is where it might get dicey for someone to obtain some kind of Ph.D. from a real school). Although, I agree it’s probably easier for someone with a higher IQ to obtain the Ph.D. if they wanted.
