Talk:Credentialism

	This Logic related article has been awarded BRONZE status for quality. It's getting there, but could be better with improvement. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

(create an archive)

What exactly

What exactly is the point of this article? It seems to be a bit all over the place. --AKjeldsen^{Cum 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. NightFlare^{i 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. ħuman 04:09, 20 August 2008 (EDT)

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. weaseLOId^{bite me} 07:14, 15 August 2008 (EDT)

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. ħuman 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.--Bob^{Spring 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. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

'That's the way to do it'

Punch and Judy booth operators are called professors - and there is even a college of them: to what extent does this involve credentialism (given that they have to operate the puppets and entertain the audience). 82.44.143.26 (talk) 17:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Victoria Zdrok

I realize including Zdrok in the section Is there a doctor in the house? was probably intended to be humorous especially with the inclusion of her picture, but it seems to me that the mention falls outside the scope of what was intended (that is, people that are addressed as 'Doctor' but don't have relevant creds). I was not familiar with Zdrok until reading this article, but something that caught my eye immediately was the phrase "though her Ph.D. in clinical psychology is law-related." That makes no sense and appears to be a misunderstanding. According to sources I found, Zdrok has a psych PhD from Drexel, a law degree (JD) from Villanova, and a post-doctoral training in sex therapy from New Jersey School of Medicine. Compared to the others named in the section, those are some pretty strong creds. Besides the obvious goof with describing her creds, I'm not sure Zdrok is a good example of something abusing the title "Doctor."Legitimus (talk) 17:31, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I think the point was to contrast Dr. Zdrok (correct credentials for her field) to Dr. Laura (irrelevant credentials for her field). I have changed the text to make this clearer. Bongolian (talk) 18:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Douglas Lind Rokke

Rokke often is introduced as Dr Rokke or Major Rokke, implying that he is truly expert in the field of depleted uranium casualties. The doctorate is PhD in Vocational Education, nothing to do with science or depleted uranium. He is a retired US Army Reserve Major, but most likely never served on active duty in the grade of Major since he was forced into the retired reserve in 2003 because of inadequate participation in the reserves. He implies that he has the soldier's welfare in his blood, when in fact he never was in the active Army and was ordered as a reservist to serve in the Gulf War where he was assigned to Riyadh. I bring this up because Dr Rokke, Major Rokke, signed an opinion piece in Hawaii as being a disabled veteran, disabled because of his exposure to depleted uranium. Now how can one possibly argue with a "professional" soldier scholar who is disabled? That most certainly is credential bullying. I have a copy of the relevant military records and the doctoral thesis.