Talk:Credentialism

From RationalWiki
(Redirected from Talk:Credentials)
Jump to: navigation, search

What exactly is the point of this article? It seems to be a bit all over the place. --AKjeldsenCum dissensie 18:11, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Perhaps we should move it to "Credentials bullying" if you don't mind stealing the term from Andrew Schlafly, JD, Bch. NightFlarei haz a talk page. 18:13, 10 August 2008 (EDT)
I guess it sort of is, isn't it? It's pretty much meant as an overview of what credentials actually are, what they represent, and how people abuse them. Feel free to suggest improvements, though I would hesitate about suggesting adding them to the article until we can figure out how to make it all go together better. EVDebs 00:04, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
I take that back. Now that I've cleaned it up a little, fire at will. EVDebs 13:37, 11 August 2008 (EDT)
How about "Credential bullying"? "Credentials" is just, somehow, the wrong title for this. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:09, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Conservapedia examples

I've started a section on how credentials (or lack of) are used in arguments at Conservapedia. Please add any good examples you can find. If we get a few good examples, this part of the article could be split & moved to Conservapedia namespace. weaseLOIdbite me 07:14, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Not another edit war

This edit, according to Human, is mostly gibberish. I don't want to start another edit war, but I think this edit is worth keeping and improving upon. -- Nx / talk 10:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Pasted here:

Many people still insist on imbuing things like a "doctorate of theology" with the same amount of cred as a doctorate in (say) biology, a bit odd when you compare the two field's scientific achievements over the past few centuries.

End of paste. What is "cred"? Who is "you"? What does the last half even mean? Does it make the article better? Who are "many people"? What do they "insist"? What does it take to earn a PhD? Raw garbage, although it looks tasty on the surface. ħumanUser talk:Human 10:29, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

[1]
Me is Nx.
The last half means that a Dr. in theology doesn't compare to a doctor in biology. Yes, it's a bit of a straw man, but I think it is somewhat valid. See Kent Hovind.
Yes.
"Many people" should be avoided, yet it is used in other articles as well...
They insist on being treated as experts on a matter.
Dunno
Disagree. -- Nx / talk 10:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
In principle it says something interesting. Referencing the "many people" who believe they are equivalent might be a good idea. We could probably work out a better way of comparing the contributions of the two over the last few centuries - though I can't think of one at the moment.--BobSpring is sprung! 10:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Academically they are equivalent, they just qualify the scholar in entirely different fields and for entirely different vocations. A doctorate of theology does not make anyone an authority on biological science, if that's what this sentence means. But if you measure a qualification's "cred" purely according to its field's scientific achievements, you are effectively saying that any qualifications in arts subjects are entirely worthless, which is not supposed to be the point of this article. WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support