Just wanted to ruminate about a few things that I've been enjoying.
I've taken up laser tag again. It's pretty good exercise, provided that you don't have obnoxiously long waits in between games. It does get expensive, though.
I've been enjoying the vocal talents of Ms. Michelle Nicastro as well. What a singer!
Speaking of singers, I'll soon be attending a Christmas concert by the delightful Ms. Jodi Benson. It looks like I might also have some equally delightful company. That'll be great.
I also discovered the vocal stylings of Zooey Deschanel recently. Wow. She is absolutely incredible. She could even give Jodi Benson a run for her money.
Saturday, December 02, 2006
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Should Ph.D.s be referred to as "doctor"?
In recent years, I've frequently heard people claim that individuals who hold PhDs are not "real" doctors. These people assert that only physicians can rightfully claim this title, and that it's inappropriate for PhD-holders to use this term.
Frankly, I'm surprised. I thought it was common knowledge that there are both medical and non-medical doctors, and that this is a legitimate term to use in both situations. Apparently though, common knowledge isn't always as common as one would hope. For this reason, I'd like to take a moment to dispel some of the myths behind this title. (For the sake of brevity, I shall henceforth focus on the PhD degree; however, the same arguments hold for comparable degrees such as the ScD and the ThD).
Can PhDs legitimately claim to be doctors? Absolutely! The term "doctor" is derived from the Latin verb docere, which means "to teach." Historically, it refers to a teacher or, by extension, a scholar. It did not specifically refer to a physician. This title was later co-opted by the medical community though, due to the respect and prestige that it imputes. In one of life's great ironies, many uninformed laypeople now percieve the medical degree to be more prestigious than the lowly PhD, declaring that people who have earned the latter are "not real doctors."
Some people say, "Well, most people only think of physicians as doctors. According to the rules of common usage then, PhD-holders shouldn't use this title." I understand the appeal of this argument, but frankly, I think it's fallacious. There are many individuals that are known to the public as "Doctor"--Dr. Martin Luther King, Dr. Joyce Brothers and Dr. Laura Schlessinger. None of these individuals has a medical degree, and yet they are commonly accorded this title.
Moreover, I think that this argument panders to ignorance, rather than fighting it. If a large portion of the population thinks that (or acts as though) only MD-holders truly merit the title of "doctor," should we bend over backwards and let their misperceptions rule? Would it not be better to educate people on the historical, established usage of this term--usage that persists to this day?
Some say, "If you refer to a PhD-holder as 'Doctor Smith,' then people will assume that he's a physician. So what happens if there's a medical emergency? Do you want people running to Smith for medical help?" Frankly, I think that this argument betrays a low opinion of the public's intelligence; it assumes that people are too dim-witted to learn, and that we may as well accept the inevitable. Personally,I would rather fight ignorance gently than assume such a lowly opinion of the common man's intellience. Would some people continue to think that only physicians merit this title? Probably so--but I suspect that the vast majority of individuals are intelligent enough to learn otherwise.
For some reason, many also think that the MD is much more difficult to attain than a PhD. I can understand why; after all, we've all heard horror stories about medical students working long hours and stayin up all through the night. However, people simply don't realize how laborious a PhD program can be. PhD students often have to engage in long hours of grueling studies and research if they wish to complete their studies in a timely fashion. I'd say that when it comes to years of study, PhD programs are more demanding as well; when starting from a bachelor's degree, a PhD typically takes from six to eight years to complete, as opposed to four years for the medical degree.
When someone declares that physicians are the only real doctors, he is simply mistaken. I'd say that PhDs have every right to this title--and I say that based on the title's etymology, the demands of their programs and the accepted, contemporary usage of this term, even outside of academic circles.
Frankly, I'm surprised. I thought it was common knowledge that there are both medical and non-medical doctors, and that this is a legitimate term to use in both situations. Apparently though, common knowledge isn't always as common as one would hope. For this reason, I'd like to take a moment to dispel some of the myths behind this title. (For the sake of brevity, I shall henceforth focus on the PhD degree; however, the same arguments hold for comparable degrees such as the ScD and the ThD).
Can PhDs legitimately claim to be doctors? Absolutely! The term "doctor" is derived from the Latin verb docere, which means "to teach." Historically, it refers to a teacher or, by extension, a scholar. It did not specifically refer to a physician. This title was later co-opted by the medical community though, due to the respect and prestige that it imputes. In one of life's great ironies, many uninformed laypeople now percieve the medical degree to be more prestigious than the lowly PhD, declaring that people who have earned the latter are "not real doctors."
Some people say, "Well, most people only think of physicians as doctors. According to the rules of common usage then, PhD-holders shouldn't use this title." I understand the appeal of this argument, but frankly, I think it's fallacious. There are many individuals that are known to the public as "Doctor"--Dr. Martin Luther King, Dr. Joyce Brothers and Dr. Laura Schlessinger. None of these individuals has a medical degree, and yet they are commonly accorded this title.
Moreover, I think that this argument panders to ignorance, rather than fighting it. If a large portion of the population thinks that (or acts as though) only MD-holders truly merit the title of "doctor," should we bend over backwards and let their misperceptions rule? Would it not be better to educate people on the historical, established usage of this term--usage that persists to this day?
Some say, "If you refer to a PhD-holder as 'Doctor Smith,' then people will assume that he's a physician. So what happens if there's a medical emergency? Do you want people running to Smith for medical help?" Frankly, I think that this argument betrays a low opinion of the public's intelligence; it assumes that people are too dim-witted to learn, and that we may as well accept the inevitable. Personally,I would rather fight ignorance gently than assume such a lowly opinion of the common man's intellience. Would some people continue to think that only physicians merit this title? Probably so--but I suspect that the vast majority of individuals are intelligent enough to learn otherwise.
For some reason, many also think that the MD is much more difficult to attain than a PhD. I can understand why; after all, we've all heard horror stories about medical students working long hours and stayin up all through the night. However, people simply don't realize how laborious a PhD program can be. PhD students often have to engage in long hours of grueling studies and research if they wish to complete their studies in a timely fashion. I'd say that when it comes to years of study, PhD programs are more demanding as well; when starting from a bachelor's degree, a PhD typically takes from six to eight years to complete, as opposed to four years for the medical degree.
When someone declares that physicians are the only real doctors, he is simply mistaken. I'd say that PhDs have every right to this title--and I say that based on the title's etymology, the demands of their programs and the accepted, contemporary usage of this term, even outside of academic circles.
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Revisiting the predator complaint
Earlier, I talked about an opportunistic jerk who moved in on a friend of mine right after she broke off her engagement. He was thinking about himself -- his own desires -- with no regard for the hurts in her life.
Some people agreed with my assessment -- most notably, women I've known who had broken off their engagements or who underwent divorce. A few selfish souls, however, said "Yeah, but if he waited, then someone might have beaten him to her." As I said, a selfish approach. A true gentleman would wait.
A couple of people said, "So what? It's her decision to make." That is unbelievably naive. Of course, it's her decision to make. That doesn't mean that we can afford to take advantage of people who are hurting in this fashion. It's just not right. We can choose to exploit their vulnerabilities, but that doesn't mean that it's justified. We can't excuse this by saying, "Well, it was her choice."
Ridiculous.
Some people agreed with my assessment -- most notably, women I've known who had broken off their engagements or who underwent divorce. A few selfish souls, however, said "Yeah, but if he waited, then someone might have beaten him to her." As I said, a selfish approach. A true gentleman would wait.
A couple of people said, "So what? It's her decision to make." That is unbelievably naive. Of course, it's her decision to make. That doesn't mean that we can afford to take advantage of people who are hurting in this fashion. It's just not right. We can choose to exploit their vulnerabilities, but that doesn't mean that it's justified. We can't excuse this by saying, "Well, it was her choice."
Ridiculous.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Being an opportunistic male predator
Last July, one of female friends broke off her engagement, just one week before her wedding. I was relieved to hear this, since I really didn't approve of the guy she was dating. To cut a long story short, I'm pretty sure that he was putting up a false front -- conveniently adopting her religious beliefs so that they could get married. I doubted the sincerity of his conversion and his convictions, as did several others.
So she broke the engagement off. Good for her. With nary a delay, this one fella -- his name is Chris -- moved right in. He made his interest blindingly obvious, even though she was tremendously vulnerable and her wounds were still sore.
He was no gentleman. He knew full well that she was still hurting badly. Instead of letting her wound heal for a while, he moved right in like a cat on the prowl. I don't like it when my friends are treated that way.
I know, some people would disagree with me. Still, I think it's a pretty sleazy thing for a man to do. When a woman has just broken off her engagement -- a few days before the wedding, no less -- then she's in no position to pursue a dating relationship. There has to be a lot of healing involved, first. You might win her heart, but you wouldn't be respectful. You would be acting with your personal desires in mind, rather than thinking about what's best for her.
There's a reason why divorcess are advised to wait at least a year before dating. When that type of commitment is broken, it takes a long time to heal. During that period, you're not in a position to make sound judgments. Certain men like to swoop right in during that time, but that merely shows that they're acting selfishly.
BTW, as I'm typing this, Microsoft Windows keeps stalling on me for a second or two -- sometimes more. It's bloody annoying. I tried opening up Windows Explorer, and the process brought the computer to practically a halt. No good reason why, mind you. Microsoft produces unbelievable bloatware, thanks to their idiotic design philosophy.
So she broke the engagement off. Good for her. With nary a delay, this one fella -- his name is Chris -- moved right in. He made his interest blindingly obvious, even though she was tremendously vulnerable and her wounds were still sore.
He was no gentleman. He knew full well that she was still hurting badly. Instead of letting her wound heal for a while, he moved right in like a cat on the prowl. I don't like it when my friends are treated that way.
I know, some people would disagree with me. Still, I think it's a pretty sleazy thing for a man to do. When a woman has just broken off her engagement -- a few days before the wedding, no less -- then she's in no position to pursue a dating relationship. There has to be a lot of healing involved, first. You might win her heart, but you wouldn't be respectful. You would be acting with your personal desires in mind, rather than thinking about what's best for her.
There's a reason why divorcess are advised to wait at least a year before dating. When that type of commitment is broken, it takes a long time to heal. During that period, you're not in a position to make sound judgments. Certain men like to swoop right in during that time, but that merely shows that they're acting selfishly.
BTW, as I'm typing this, Microsoft Windows keeps stalling on me for a second or two -- sometimes more. It's bloody annoying. I tried opening up Windows Explorer, and the process brought the computer to practically a halt. No good reason why, mind you. Microsoft produces unbelievable bloatware, thanks to their idiotic design philosophy.
Monday, June 05, 2006
Antigravity nonsense
I will never forget Sal, this Mechanical Engineering grad student that I knew way back when. He was a real pain and a bit of a nut.
He was ranting about how he wanted to build an antigravity system and how physicists laughed at him. Me, I wasn't about to laugh, but I did know that he had descended into quackery.
That's what happens when engineers think exclusively as engineers, plugging and chugging their physics equations, without properly understanding the physics principles themselves.
He was ranting about how he wanted to build an antigravity system and how physicists laughed at him. Me, I wasn't about to laugh, but I did know that he had descended into quackery.
That's what happens when engineers think exclusively as engineers, plugging and chugging their physics equations, without properly understanding the physics principles themselves.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
