Who can give one example where road upgrades have made any difference to the well being of Aucklanders? Not building new ones altogether, as was the case with the expressway which goes out towards Hobsonville and beyond. No, general road upgrades. Have Auckland's motorway developments done the remotest bit of good for any commuter into the city? How about out of the city? The answer quite plainly is no. Instead of looking at viable options to encourage public transport in some shape or form, Gerry Brownlee is more than content to increase petrol taxes significantly to achieve a rather wicked purpose. Not only will current roads be butchered even more, new roads shall be constructed after much of the beautiful countryside is mutilated.
No apologies have been made either by Mr Brownlee to struggling families who can barely afford to drive. With 3c increases next year and the following year, these motorists can only hope petrol prices fall internationally to compensate for this rise. Otherwise, expect to see more cars by those who can afford it.
How can a party which repeatedly promises a brighter future claim that having more cars on the road is more beneficial for anyone? The reason public transport remains so bad is because no National party leader with power can acknowledge that cycle ways and a national railroad may actually be a better, more efficient form of transport than more cars.
As youth rates are set to be debated, it seems almost ironic that the woman who campaigned against them was one Sue Bradford. While Ms. Bradford was full or propaganda about many issues, I applaud her for setting out a simple argument about youth and adults being entitled to the same pay for doing the same job. If Mr. Key would like to inform us about whether he received a youth wage, perhaps that could shed some light on a rather sneering opinion he holds that teenagers should be underpaid.
The other day, whilst surfing Youtube I saw a woman continuously listing off a multitude of so called "climate scientists," professing that their books had to be right because they had the word "Dr" in front of their name. Would someone care to explain what suddenly makes someone with a PhD an absolute genius? The Bradford creature (mentioned above) nearly has a PhD and she is anything but intelligent. Paul McKenna (author of "Hypnotic Gastric Band") has two PhD's, yet he cannot see that book is only a short term solution to a long term problem. No, a PhD simply shows someone can, with an extreme amount of discipline and hard work, conduct high amounts of research in a very specific area and draw conclusions which add to human knowledge. If that's intelligent, then so is writing a book such as Tim Noake's The Lore or Running (1,000 pages of running know how) or Michael King's A History of New Zealand. Each man undertook an astronomical volume of reading and research to compile these two books. There are many other examples. Phillip Pulman (The Golden Compass), Stephen King (with his book 11/22/63) and countless others (which I'm happy to list if you want).
***I've expanded on some areas in the PhD section on the back of one posters comment.***
7 comments:
A requirement of a PhD thesis is to add human knowledge and must be examined by a panel of peers. A scientific PhD is required to follow an appropriate scientific process and draw conclusions based on the evidence collected. This requires intelligence, hard work and persistance and shows that the holder is capable of following the scientific method.
Not everyone with a PhD is always correct but I suggest you get your facts straight before making blanket comments about the worth of a PhD based on two examples. Equating it to writing a book is insulting.
Anonymous makes some notable critiques in my argument. Some of it has been updated (such as the adding to human knowledge and some books which required extensive research). The intelligence side of it was not added because Anonymous still did not answer my original question which was "what suddenly makes someone with a PhD an absolute genius?" I'm not saying those with a PhD aren't geniuses; many are. Some people though do not even have degrees and have read extensively into areas people with Doctorates have and yet these people seem to have their views devalued because they don't have the words "Dr" in front of their name.
Someone having their views devalued because they don't have a PhD is the fault of the readers not academia. I don't remember anyone ever claiming that it's impossible to be intelligent unless you have a doctorate.
Is everyone with a PhD an absolute genius? No. Never remember anyone claiming that either. As I said before, it does show that you have some level on intelligence and the ability to work hard and draw conclusions based on evidence in an appropriate way as determined by your peers.
In academia you do need a PhD to be taken seriously, that's not saying that it's impossible to be intelligent without one. Instead it's a way of showing that you are capable of researching a topic.
Seems to me that all your arguments are based on your perceptions. You say that people without Doctorates have their view devalued, based on what evidence? Your perception.
Doctorates are the exactly the same as writing a book. Based on what evidence? Your perception.
From reading this article I get the impression that you disagree with someone who has a PhD and have therefore drawn the conclusion that PhDs are obviously worthless because any intelligent person would agree with you.
Anonymous returns and writes "Seems to me that all your arguments are based on your perceptions." Not so. My arguments are indeed my perceptions, based on logical fact and reasoning. Of course the evidence only takes you so far, from which you have to take an opinion. It's much like the socialism vs capitalism arguments. There's good and bad evidence for both arguments. It's a person's peception about which one is better when they take a position. Just like it's your "perception" that I hold such views
All my arguments? Care to provide some evidence for that? One of my most read posts is "A generation stupid enough to ignore every warning sign." If he wants
If we were to put, for example Christopher Monckton up against Dr Benjamin Santer in a discussion about climate change, who will be taken more seriously? The person with a PhD. Or a climate skeptic, who doesn't? It's reasonable to suggest the PhD will be admired more and seen as a more credible course of information. You even say so: "In academia you do need a PhD to be taken seriously, that's not saying that it's impossible to be intelligent without one."
Anonymous again. "Doctorates are the exactly the same as writing a book. Based on what evidence? Your perception." The original quote was "If that's intelligent, then so is writing a book," which was more of a sarcastic statement at people who perceive a higher education as the only sign of intelligence than an challenge to anyone with a PhD or a book writer.As I never made the claim a PhD thesis and writing a book are the same, that is Anonymous statement, not mine. Never was that suggested, nor will it be.
Anonymous also uses an annoying line "I get the impression that." What Anonymous really means is "He didn't write that. But rather than admit he didn't I'll pretend he did so my argument holds up." Nor have I (based on "your perception") "drawn the conclusion that PhDs are obviously worthless." I think PhD's are fantastic degrees and a real testament to anyone who has one. Despite what I may think of them, it is a very difficult to achieve and anyone who has one ought to be proud of themselves.
Anonymous, where does it say in the original post that I am disagreeing with anyone who has a PhD? What sentence suggests that? I'm not actually disagreeing with anyone or else I would have mentioned them in the post.
As much as I would like to be able to perfectly perceive an authors intent I can only interpret what he has written. My comments talking about your arguments are addressing what is written down here. This is why I purposefully put in the phrases "I get the impression" and "it seems to me" because I realise I am interpreting what you have written and not necessarily what you meant. This is all can do being human and all.
You say your arguments are based on evidence and are logical conclusions. Well in this blog you don't provide that evidence. You make blanket statements about PhDs and the only supporting evidence you have actually given is that someone with a PhD has written something you disagree with:
"Paul McKenna (author of "Hypnotic Gastric Band") has two PhD's, yet he cannot see that book is only a short term solution to a long term problem. "
- Note: This is where you say that you disagree with someone who has a PhD.
Then you say that there are some authors who have written some big well-researched books. I don't accept those points as sufficient evidence for the viewpoint that comes across.
"No, a PhD simply shows someone can, with an extreme amount of discipline and hard work, conduct high amounts of research in a very specific area. If that's intelligent, then so is writing a book. "
(I believe this was the original text?)
You talk about people using a PhD as a measure of intelligence, you then go on to say if that's intelligent then so is writing a book. When reading your blog the message I get is that you think a PhD is the same as writing a book. The message I got when reading this is that you think a PhD is the same as writing a book.
"If we were to put, for example Christopher Monckton up against Dr Benjamin Santer in a discussion about climate change, who will be taken more seriously? The person with a PhD. Or a climate skeptic, who doesn't?"
Is this actual evidence or your perception about what would happen in a hypothetical situation? Also please not that I didn't say that people won't pay more attention to a Dr, chances are they would. I said paying more attention do a Dr is the fault of the reader. An argument should stand for itself regardless of who it comes from.
When I read your blog, the section on PhDs came across to me (the reader) as you having a go at PhDs.
I presented my opinion on what you have written and the message I got from it. I can only comment on what you written and not your original intent because I'm only human. Either I have horribly misinterpreted the text or the text fails to convey your viewpoint.
I also recognise that I'm more likely to be offended at (what I perceived to be) an attack on Doctorates having spent three years of my life working hard to get mine. Given that your last comment clearly states that your intent wasn't to have a go at PhDs and think they're worthwhile degrees then I can only conclude that we have different interpretations of your original post.
I've said almost all desire to say with anonymous. They finally acknowledge that it was not a cheap stab at people with PhD's (it wasn't). There was a misinterpretation.
In my Monckton vs Santer example Anonymous writes "Is this actual evidence or your perception about what would happen in a hypothetical situation?" Yes, it has happened and continues to happen. Monckton has appeared many times in many media outlets to voice suspicion of man made climate change and Santer comes out to support the movement. Santer has received much more attention for his efforts, even being rewarded a role on the IPCC (international panel for climate change).
When talking about Mckenna's book (which I have written a review about), I don't have a disagreement with him about what he proposes. It was tried and worked (my weight went down 1kg in 10 days). My "perception" is that long term I wouldn't suggest it. But that's disagreement on an issue outside the book, not the actual idea itself, which seemed to work.
Anonymous writes "Then you say that there are some authors who have written some big well-researched books. I don't accept those points as sufficient evidence for the viewpoint that comes across.
You talk about people using a PhD as a measure of intelligence, you then go on to say if that's intelligent then so is writing a book. When reading your blog the message I get is that you think a PhD is the same as writing a book. The message I got when reading this is that you think a PhD is the same as writing a book."
Not true. The comparison I draw on the book writing is the level of time and dedication a person needs to commit to succeed in either discipline. In terms of workload, there are many books, fiction and non-fiction in which the writer researches extensively on the topic. For example, it took JRR Tolkien 13 years to write Lord of the Rings. The dedication and care needed to even get a book published is similar to the dedication and care required to writer a PhD. That however was not my main point of writing this snippet.
Anonymous. "Also please not that I didn't say that people won't pay more attention to a Dr, chances are they would." I never said you did. I myself said that. And I thank this poster for finally engaging in my main point of the PhD post which is that readers often give more weight to an argument by a person with the words "Dr" in front of them, rather than reading both sides objectively before deciding which argument is more persuasive.
Other readers can decide for themselves what the original post meant. The disagreement was never about people with PhD's.
It was, as I said in the last comment an attack on this strange societal view that whoever has a PhD, therefore has an opinion which media and society perceive as more credible and worthy than say a high school dropout.I made corrections to the blog (which doesn't often happen) and made it clear it wasn't an attack on any "Dr."
If your point was the people should look at both sides of an argument objectively before deciding then I wholeheartedly agree. I still don't think you communicated that effectively in your original post.
Good day.
Post a Comment