Dr Neil Hayes' Birthday!

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Discussions' started by uncle janko, Jul 30, 2005.

Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. marilynd

    marilynd New Member

    Actually, I suspect the archives would show that that disinction belongs to Preotul the Mighty.

    ;)

    marilynd
     
  2. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    Yes! Finally someone just cuts to the chase. This summarizes almost exactly what I was thinking as I read all the postings in this thread. Bravo, marilynd!
     
  3. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Ah, there's the rub. No one, not Henrik (the owner), "Dr. Marianus" (a graduate), nor even Neil himself ever attempts to defend the school. They attempt to excuse it instead.

    There is no reason why Knightsbridge cannot operate from a jurisdiction that would--theoretically--recognize it. It's not like Knightsbridge is organic to Denmark or anything. No, they operate from Denmark because the law--and the authorities--don't regulate them. This is their excuse.

    Degrees awarded by Knightsbridge have the exact same legal and educational status as self-awarded degrees: None.
     
  4. Guest

    Guest Guest

    WOW! Who would have thought a simple birthday greeting would lead to such discussion..............
     
  5. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Well, I think that we're troubled that an apparently legitimate scientist, someone whose work appears to be not only genuine but also important, is going around defending something that looks a LOT like an academic fraud.

    The questionable institution appears to be turning this to its commercial advantage. That is irritating, to say the least.
     
  6. Jake_A

    Jake_A New Member

    Delightful! Just wonderful!

    This planet, or space-time-ideas continuum, has been blessed eternal with several personages whose command of the spoken or written word (in whatever language or languages, even dialects) is/was unassailable, mellifluous, gentle, persuasive, simply beautiful.

    You, DI's one-and-only Marilynd, is one such linguistinum perfecto cum delecto. Of course, Uncle J., in my humble opinion, holds the title ad infinitum.

    You must be the reincarnation of George Eliot (whose pen name was Mary Ann Evans). or at least, of Emily Bronte. No?

    I say that you are. If you doubt this, prove me wrong. (You cannot, can you?) .

    Peace.

    :)
     
  7. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Is it coindidential the top threads right now deal with Dr. Hayes, Graduate Theological Foundation, and Trinity Theological Seminary?
     
  8. BillDayson

    BillDayson New Member

    I think that I disagree pretty emphatically with that. I think that the legitimacy (in the credibility sense) of degrees depends crucially on the quality of the academic accomplishment that they represent.

    If degrees don't symbolize academic accomplishment, then what's their point?

    It's hard for me to think of examples, but the possibility certainly exists that a school might be operating without the necessary legal approvals but nevertheless be a credible academic program.

    What's wrong with degree-mills obtaining 'degree-granting authority' through registration in some jurisdiction that doesn't enforce any academic standards, then selling their "legitimate" degrees online?

    But the possibility does exist that they have done work equivalent to a degree. If employers are actually in search of subject-matter expertise, they might prefer the accomplished author over somebody with a Potemkin-doctorate.

    Nope. Wouldn't want to do that.

    My reason for questioning Knightsbridge is because of the difficulty in knowing what kind of academic accomplishments KU degrees represent. In Neil's case, the accomplishment might arguably be credible, but with the next KU graduate, who knows?

    I pretty much agree with your conclusion, but I think that I disagree with your premises.
     
  9. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    Yeah... how 'bout that. Neil contributes even when he's not here. Neat trick. I think I like his postings here better this way.

    ;)

    (Oooh. That one outta' earn me an attack over on the Crabby Forum!)
     
  10. JamesK

    JamesK New Member

    Do we know who the external examiner was?
     
  11. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Dr. Richard Douglas. :D
     
  12. DesElms

    DesElms New Member

    Oh, man, Jimmy. You are bad. It's like watching a little kid write something with a bar of soap on his neighbor's windshield, and then run like hell... giggling all the way. ;)
     
  13. marilynd

    marilynd New Member

    Of course you do, since you have redefined the premise. I was specifically talking about the legal authority to award degrees. You are speaking of legitimacy "in the credibility sense." These are two different things. Acceptability (credibility, if you will) of a degree will vary according to person and circumstance. However, a degree-granting body either has been legally authorized to award degrees or it has not. A granting of degrees by an institution that has no legal authority to do so is by definition illegitimate, in the denotative sense of that term. There may be instances in which an illegitimate degree becomes generally acceptable (i.e., not just hanging on the wall at home), but off-hand, I can't think of one.

    In the specific case of Knightsbridge, which was the target of my post, the Danish government--if my information is correct--has stated specifically that the institution has not been awarded legal authority to award degrees in Denmark and that it is not allowed to award degrees to Danish citizens. By definition, illegitimate. Can you think of a reason why its degrees should be generally acceptable? I can't.

    Not germane to my point and so non-responsive.

    There is a reason why examples are hard to come by: proper academic institutions know that their degrees will not be recognized as proper unless degree-granting authority is given. Whether they seek accreditation or not, they will seek degree-granting authority. Of course, as you say, there may be a credible academic program that might work outside of the "necessary legal approvals." I might also marry the Saudi King tomorrow and become the new Queen of Araby, but I wouldn't count it. Such a program might be acceptable in some circles or circumstances, but they would not be legitimate. Do we know of any such?

    "What's wrong with it?" I'm sure you know what's wrong with it. Perhaps you mean that "there is the possibility of."

    Can you think of one? By my definition, of course, such degrees would be legitimate (e.g., one would not likely be successful in suing the degree-holder for fraud in claiming such a degree, since the degree has legal authority). Do we know of any such? There is always the possibility of rogue or corrupt governments doing something like this, but that would impact on the acceptability of the degree, wouldn't it?

    True, but not germane to the question of legal authority. Similarly, I could do sterling research on a topic, present it to an institution that likes the work and hires me because of it. I still have no degree. The institution is the prima causa of the degree, not the work.

    But this is the point, isn't it? Who decides on credibility or acceptability? What if you're judgments are not mine? Should we live in a world where both the legitimacy and acceptability of a degree are in the eye of the beholder? Is degree-holding a relative condition? That would defeat the very raison d'etre of academic degrees. As you say, degrees should "symbolize academic accomplishment." This is true. However, this is only part of definition of a degree. A degree is also a contract so-to-speak--between the institution/holder and the recipient of the degree-claim--that the academic achievement has been certified by an institution recognized to undertake such a certification. The academic achievement is a personal accomplishment. The degree is a social certification of that personal accomplishment. It is important, to me at least, that we never confuse the two. It is for this reason, it seems to me, that a question of the legitimacy of the degree--in both senses of that term--begin with the question of the legal authority to award the degree. This is the first test. If the degree is illegitimate, in the denotative sense, then one must justify why the illegitimate degree should be nevertheless acceptable. This is a hard test, and it should be.

    Naturally, there will always be legitimate degrees which, in particular circumstances, are non-acceptable. When I was a graduate student, the chairman of the Barnard religion department and I were chatting about hiring. The department chair (I won't say who but she had great repute then and has since gained nationwide fame) told me that when she gets applications for an opening, she puts the applications of PhDs from the top six schools of religious studies into one pile and everyone else into another pile, a mark of the number of applications received for each opening. To her, there were levels of acceptability of the degrees presented, given the situation and circumstances at the time. I doubt, however, that she would have considered the legally authorized degrees in the non-acceptable pile to be illegitimate.

    I'm glad you have accepted my conclusion, and I hope that you will reassess my premises.

    Regards, as always,

    marilynd
     
  14. marilynd

    marilynd New Member

    Thanks, Jake. Quite flattering.

    Like you, my vote goes to Janko.

    Regards,

    marilynd
     
  15. adamsmith

    adamsmith member

    Charles Darwin did not have a doctorate. Either did Adam Smith (no degree!), David Hume...and so the list goes on.....
     
  16. adamsmith

    adamsmith member

    And I am not sure why the occasion of Neil Hayes's birthday was taken as an opportunity of having a mighty big swipe at him...again!
     
  17. marilynd

    marilynd New Member

    Nor did they claim to have earned one.

    marilynd
     
  18. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Because someone (Jimmy) accused two others (Gregg and I) of doing so when we had not.

    Normally, personalities should not be at issue. Even in this thread, no one is taking the ad hominem approach. But Hayes and his defending of his fraudulent degrees has been a major focal point on this board. Also, Hayes is not known for anything else related to DL. Nothing. So it seems natural that the subject would come up.

    BTW, no one is taking a "swipe" at Hayes. But they (we) are taking a swipe at his fraudulent claims, as well as the diploma mills he's used. Those "swipes" are about Hayes only to the extent of his involvement. And since he continues to misrepresent his educational accomplishments--and continues to defend his diploma mills--discussing that when discussing him seems natural to me.
     
  19. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Fine. How many of them claimed fake degrees? And how is your list relevant? No one cares about discussing--much less disputing--Hayes' duck stuff.

    If it was discovered tomorrow that Charles Darwin claimed a fake doctorate, that would be a subject of discussion on this board. Whether or not his theories about natural selection would come up would be a function of the interest in them held by members of this board. But no matter the collective opinion of Darwinism, it wouldn't change the fact that he had claimed a fake degree.

    Hayes isn't Darwin, by the way, nor Smith or Hume. :rolleyes:
     
  20. Guest

    Guest Guest

    • PRAISE THE LORD!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page