One of the main arguments regarding my “Cheating The Ferryman” concept is that in some way it is “unscientific”. This is usually backed up with the observation that I have no “scientific qualifications.” I would like to discuss these criticisms and I will approach the former first. Does lack of “formal” qualifications mean that somebody is not allowed to write about subjects that interests them? If this is the case then I can reasonably argue as a “qualified” sociologist, a “qualified” historian and a “qualified” psychometrician that anybody without such qualifications should be debarred from writing anything to do with human behaviour or history. Is this rule ever applied or even suggested? Of course not because it is ridiculous. Richard Dawkins …show more content…
absolutely nothing as he has no qualifications of any sort as far as I can ascertain. We now also have to decide what we mean by a “qualification.” Are we talking about a degree, master’s degree, a doctorate or a post-doctoral qualification in the respective subject? Indeed how current should that qualification be? Is a PhD from forty years ago worth more in this regard than a current Bsc? Is ANY PhD worth more in any subject worth more than a current and up-to-date bachelor’s degree in the defined subject? More importantly this “rule” suggests that only writers who have been “approved” by official sanction (i.e. there “qualification” is awarded by a group of similarly “approved” academics who have proven their abilities to interpret and analyse information in the “approved” way. In other words who is “qualified” is decided upon in a series of tests to show that that candidates thought processes are”approved” by the present social system … sorry I am a “qualified” sociologist and this is how I have been trained to think … even though my “qualification” was given to me nearly 40 years ago). Ways of thinking and understanding the world are controlled by the incumbent belief