Tom Nichols (and Jan Rooth) on expertise

Rather than take on Tom Nichols' post in its entirety I'll point you to Jan Rooth's comment (and ensuing string). There's much that I, too, agree with, and some that I disagree with. With regard to this,

If done properly, a PhD certifies that you are capable of conducting research to particular standards in your field, that you have contributed new knowledge to your field, and that you have an independent ability to frame questions and conduct serious, long-term analytical projects to answer them. That is a non-trivial set of skills, and to dismiss that level of intellectual training when arguing with a PhD is just plain hubris, and an unwise strategy for debate.

All I can say is, meh. Excepting the physical sciences, and other fields where PhDs make more sense, I just don't see it (and I haven't seen it in my professional experience). I've worked with PhDs who could barely move sentences around, much less frame questions.

Update: a different random quote came up when I clicked on the article a second time, and it was this one:

Just because some of us can read and write and do a little math, that doesn’t mean we deserve to conquer the universe.— Kurt Vonnegut