Current Events > Being famous automatically makes you intelligent and well informed /s

(+) Yeah! (+)

We should stop being surprised, or pretending to be surprised when actors or singers do or say dumb shit.

They're not thinkers, they're fucking actors and musicians.

---

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/style/celebrity-fame-who-weekly.amp.html

Weird how academics are the most relevant

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/style/celebrity-fame-who-weekly.amp.html

Weird how academics are the most relevant

Also, being an academic suddenly doesn't make you an expert on everything that's not your area of study. An astrophysicist isn't suddenly an expert on molecular biology.

---

pogo_rabid posted...

Also, being an academic suddenly doesn't make you an expert on everything that's not your area of study. An astrophysicist isn't suddenly an expert on molecular biology.

No but they are probably slightly more likely to understand scientific methodology and do have a boost in terms of literacy... not always

---

MedeaLysistrata posted...

No but they are probably slightly more likely to understand scientific methodology and do have a boost in terms of literacy... not always

Always going into these kinds of things assuming the person speaking is a complete moron talking out of their ass....until proven otherwise.

---

pogo_rabid posted...

Always going into these kinds of things assuming the person speaking is a complete moron talking out of their ass....until proven otherwise.

That makes you pretentious, ironically.

Lmao.

---

I don't know, have you seen some of Demi Lovato's recent quotes.

---

If it's pretentious to expect some sort of verification a person acting as an authority on a matter knows what they're talking about, then call me a modern art critic.

---

that's how it worked when i was young
obviously it stays true forever

---

pogo_rabid posted...

If it's pretentious to expect some sort of verification a person acting as an authority on a matter knows what they're talking about, then call me a modern art critic.

You just must view yourself very highly to be that judge.

---

WeeWeiWiiWie posted...

You just must view yourself very highly to be that judge.

Quite the opposite. I'm a dumbass and expect everyone to be on the same level as me until proven otherwise. Especially here on CE.

---

pogo_rabid posted...

Quite the opposite. I'm a dumbass and expect everyone to be on the same level as me until proven otherwise. Especially here on CE.

Right, a PhD in a science is on the same level as you when interpreting other science.

---

WeeWeiWiiWie posted...

Right, a PhD in a science is on the same level as you when interpreting other science.

If it's outside of their area of expertise, I assume they have the same level of understanding as a high school student; until proven otherwise.

I've worked with plenty of PHD's through work, and i've found once you get out of their wheelhouse, they're completely inept.

---

pogo_rabid posted...

If it's outside of their area of expertise, I assume they have the same level of understanding as a high school student; until proven otherwise.

I've worked with plenty of PHD's through work, and i've found once you get out of their wheelhouse, they're completely inept.

See, pretentious.

---

WeeWeiWiiWie posted...

See, pretentious.

pogo_rabid posted...

If it's pretentious to expect some sort of verification a person acting as an authority on a matter knows what they're talking about, then call me a modern art critic.

---

Getting a PhD in science isn't like memorizing a textbook or learning to do some singular task really well.

Yeah, scientists are specialized, but scientific inference doesn't just change when you enter a different field. There is expertise and knowledge that transfers. Someone with a science PhD is going to be able to critically read and enter a scientific literature far more easily than someone out of high school lol.

---

Just to add onto what Covxy is saying, I'm not a PhD, and I am absolutely not in the sciences, but even as an MA in the humanities (granted, with some background in linguistics), I can guarantee I'm better able to parse scientific literature and consider the methodology and results with a critical eye than any high-schooler, and most people without a graduate education (i'm sure scientifically-trained undergrads can often do better). Plenty of academic skills carry over across disciplines (not to mention that what we consider to be disciplinary boundaries are often pretty porous)

---

WeeWeiWiiWie posted...

Getting a PhD in science isn't like memorizing a textbook or learning to do some singular task really well.

Yeah, scientists are specialized, but scientific inference doesn't just change when you enter a different field. There is expertise and knowledge that transfers. Someone with a science PhD is going to be able to critically read and enter a scientific literature far more easily than someone out of high school lol.

Would you let an astrophysicist diagnose you with an ailment, or would you get a second opinion?

---

pogo_rabid posted...

Would you let an astrophysicist diagnose you with an ailment, or would you get a second opinion?

Lol, medicine isn't a science, first of all.

Second, to clarify, I would trust an astrophysicist's read of the biomedical sciences literature over a high school grad or an undergrad grad any day of the week.

Wouldn't trust them over someone who works in the biomedical sciences though!

---

Is there anything to be said for the fact in high school when I was learning biology, chemistry and physics simultaneously I had more knowledge of that area than ten years later where I've only studied biology at uni and haven't touched physics in ten years

---