[MD] The Hero's journey

[Arlo Bensinger]

[Mark]
Now, you may say that a Ph.D in Biotechnology is not a degree in 
Philosophy. However, you would be mistaken since any of the sciences are 
considered philosophies.

[Arlo]
Again, I'm at a loss for any other 'degree' that's so denigrated as a 
degree in philosophy. If I told you I had a PhD on the ideas of Charles 
Peirce, would you say this makes me adequately versed in Biotechnology? 
If I told you I read a few books from Barnes and Noble on biotechnology, 
does this place me on equal footing with you and your PhD?

Your problem seems to revolve around a 'blind acceptance' of whatever a 
PhD says is 'right', and I think every PhD I know would agree with that. 
But while not all knowledgeable people on a topic have PhDs, its fairly 
certain that all PhDs are knowledgeable on their subject. Indeed, what 
IS a PhD but a demonstration to the community that you understand not 
only the very broad field of your study, but also the nuances and 
critical minutia that often escape the layperson?

Have we hit a point where we say someone who has devoted the better part 
of their life to reading and understanding a philosophy has no more 
insight into that than someone who glanced through "Plato for Dummies"? 
When I want answers to how the heart works, you can bet the first people 
I turn to are the people who have made their life's effort to 
understanding and studying the heart. Are they the ONLY ones who 
understand the heart? No, but this is far different than saying that 
everyone's opinion about the heart has equal merit.

That is what 'degrees' allow us to recognize, and I don't understand why 
we so easily say an degree in biotech makes you an expert on biotech, or 
a degree in neurosurgery makes you a skilled neurosurgeon, or a degree 
in accounting makes you a knowledgeable accountant, but a degree in 
philosophy, at best, is irrelevant to your understanding of philosophy, 
or at worst an actual IMPEDIMENT to understanding philosophy.

I don't want people to blindly listen to what I say because of my degree 
in Instructional Design, I want people to recognize that my degree in 
Instructional Design precisely prepares me to have insight and skills 
that are rooted in experience, devotion, effort and a strong understand 
of instructional design. Otherwise, what's the point? Why get a degree 
at all if it either means nothing or actually means LESS than having one?

[Mark]
As such, I can consider myself free of any "educational bias" on the 
subject much in the same way that Pirsig was.

[Arlo]
See, what other field would you say such things about? Do you want a 
surgeon that free of "educational bias"? A car mechanic? What about an 
accountant? If you were developing an online course, do you want someone 
free of "educational bias" on the best designs?

This is not to fail to recognize that many professionals (surgeons, 
mechanics, accountants, professors) can succumb to tunnel vision to 
various degrees. But like with all fields, mastery of the structure is 
what enables creative and critical thinking to emerge. Pirsig was NOT 
free of "educational bias", he was a master of it, the MOQ emerged out 
of a lifetime of devotion to reading and understanding a large swath of 
interdisciplinary research and writing, with an eye towards a singular 
goal... developing his metaphysical ideas.

Does the academy make all the right decisions about what it accepts as 
theses and what it does not? No, of course not. But I firmly believe the 
MOQ would be much stronger had the University of Chicago accepted his 
proposal. Not because the process homogenizes, but because the process 
strengthens the organism. Challenges, rebuttals and 'attacks', when they 
have to responded to make good arguments all the better. No one should 
expect to go through a PhD without encountering some antagonism. Nearly 
every committee I've seen has a member who is 'hostile' in some way to 
the idea. The idea is that this strengthens the thesis, and I believe it 
does just that.

The Academy is not perfect, and it has its flaws, and many times those 
in 'cutting edge' areas feel the whole institution is laboriously 
sluggish, but the process itself is a micro-study in the balance between 
static and dynamic quality. Too static (which many feel it is) and good 
ideas (like Pirsig's) can take a while to gain entry. Too dynamic 
(which, I'd say, many also feel it is) and it just becomes nothing but 
sensationalism and whim.