But for determining truth, both sides are wrong here.
Dunning-Kruger is bad, but so is credentialism and appeal to authority.
Many people with PhD’s have had Dunning-Kruger. Someone else mentioned Ben Carson being great at neurosurgery, but not politics.
A PhD doesn’t make you infallible.
I am saying this as someone who is taking graduate-level courses and will be pursuing my PhD. When I’m correct, it’s not because my future PhD causes reality to magically conform to my opinions - it’s because I rigorously looked at the evidence, logic, and formed my own conclusion that better aligns with reality.
Okay but what is good engagement against “follow the science” aside from “I literally DO the science”? Dr. McCreight offered a point and was met with “nuh uh” so at that point it can hardly be called an argument or debate. Do those fallacies honestly matter at that point when one refuses to engage with tangible points of discussion?
I agree with Dr. Jey McCreight on the science.
But for determining truth, both sides are wrong here.
Dunning-Kruger is bad, but so is credentialism and appeal to authority.
Many people with PhD’s have had Dunning-Kruger. Someone else mentioned Ben Carson being great at neurosurgery, but not politics.
A PhD doesn’t make you infallible.
I am saying this as someone who is taking graduate-level courses and will be pursuing my PhD. When I’m correct, it’s not because my future PhD causes reality to magically conform to my opinions - it’s because I rigorously looked at the evidence, logic, and formed my own conclusion that better aligns with reality.
Okay but what is good engagement against “follow the science” aside from “I literally DO the science”? Dr. McCreight offered a point and was met with “nuh uh” so at that point it can hardly be called an argument or debate. Do those fallacies honestly matter at that point when one refuses to engage with tangible points of discussion?
You can even be incorrect on a subject you have expertise in.
that’s why we have peer reviews for new findings by experts.
Exactly, imagine if we threw away the entire peer review process and made it about, “Well I have a PhD! Checkmate.”
We’d descend into a dark age for science.
Experts often disagree.
If it were that easy, everything would be solved. We wouldn’t need so much research or so many universities.
If one hasn’t fallen victim to Dunning-Kruger, then they have not advanced their knowledge in any meaningful capacity.
I agree, but respectfully, I’m not sure what this has to do with my comment. 😭