Can Doctorate be Unaccredited?

Discussion in 'Accreditation Discussions (RA, DETC, state approva' started by Bill Huffman, Jul 11, 2003.

  1. Bill Huffman

    Bill Huffman Well-Known Member

    :( If we can't discuss what differentiates bona fide unaccredited doctorates from degree mill doctorates then I propose we reserve this thread to bashing degree mills like Knightsbridge University if that's not possible then to bashing academic frauds. :p
  2. DaveHayden

    DaveHayden New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Why Gus is right...

    1. Yep, I am sure about Henryk and his Mill.

    2. If someone is digging a post out of the past, they usually have an axe to grind.

    3. Yep, I am as sure as can be about Gus. It is your posts that waiver and make mistakes of meaning and of poor construction.

    4. I may disagree with Gus on belief or feeling but have yet to see him make those same kind of errors. Ever.

    5. It is interesting how similiar your posts have been from forum to forum Dr.
  3. Guest

    Guest Guest

    It is possible, but definitely not ever easy, for a non-affiliated researcher to get his or her results into the body of knowledge.

    Let us for a moment disregard the issue of degrees, since (at least in computer science), one never lists titles or degrees when submitting a paper for consideration to the community. Every paper is (in principle) accepted or rejected on the merits of the paper.

    Since about 1998, I have written papers on parsing and pattern matching, as well as a few other topics. My work has been cited in scholarly papers, master's theses, and doctoral dissertations.

    For all intents and purposes, in my field of expertise, I am a non-affiliated researcher. I did the research myself, I learned the skills required to produce the level of documentation that can get noticed and cited, of my own motivation. And I did the research without any funding -- grants or otherwise. I did it because I am married to the discipline of computer science, and a researcher in the discipline feels a certain inner obligation to his or her calling to disseminate results in a form understood within that discipline.

    If my work (note -- my work, not my person) has made any dent in the body of knowledge at all, it has been because of hard work and patience. I was never under the gun to seek publication. I was under a personal obligation to myself to do credible research.

    At no point did anyone ever ask me "Where did you get your terminal degree?" It simply does not matter whether I even have such a beast. When I was invited to referee a very well respected 1st tier journal in computing -- I was not asked -- where did you get your terminal degree. I simply refereed the paper as invited to do. I had become known as an expert in a certain area because certain people knew my work, and trusted my learned, considered judgment within that field.

    When it comes to credible research, there are no shortcuts. Just today I submitted a 43 page scholarly research paper to a very well known journal that has been expecting this paper from me now since May of this year. This paper has gone through much revision. This paper contains a reference section that rivals many master's theses. Every research result has been pored over and analyzed. If it makes it to publication -- so much the better. If not -- I shall revise and try another journal. In research there is no "accreditation" or "licensure" or "degrees". There is only results, method, and presentation of same.

    The paper has also been reviewed by more than a few experts in the fields to which it pertains, and I have adjusted my presentation according to their feedback and suggestions. No shortcuts.

    Making any kind of dent at all on the body of knowledge is work, pure and simple. This is an issue that transcends local, state, and federal law. The academic community, at its heart, blind to such things when it comes to scholarly presentation of results.

    Now I will add some opinion:

    It is most likely that one of the best ways to reach the point where a given person can reach that level of self-discipline is for that given person to be put through the rigor of a research university. It is most likely that this will only occur in a setting where the process is monitored. I am not saying this is required, but simply that this is the most likely way for this to happen.

    In any case -- all I can do now is hurry up and wait.

    My two cents has run out.

  4. rocco5

    rocco5 member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Gus is right...

    Do you realize that there are bridges between Platonism and Postmodernism ?

    Do you further realize that many posters here seem to regard their own views as some sort of religious truth ?

    Do you think that there is a moral obligation for a person to hold consistent philosophical assumptions in every discussion or always be self- consistent in her own thinking?

    And as far as "errors"in thinking are concerned, what kind of error is a belief that social experiences via electronic means are the same or of the same quality as social experiences had in person ? What kind of error is that ?
  5. Gus Sainz

    Gus Sainz New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Gus is right...

    My conclusion is that we are dealing with a cross-dressing troll. :D
  6. rocco5

    rocco5 member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Gus is right...

    Trolls live under bridges and are not given to cross-dressing. Moreover, many or your insults tend to focus on sexual aberrations. Is this a fascination of yours or do you think that you will bother somebody with such puerile, locker room stuff ?....and you wonder why less well-integrated people bother you with off-forum harassment ???

    The central point of disagreemet between us is the nature of and value of electronic media in reationship to live bodies. You will never be able to show that social experience via any form of electronic media is superior overall to a natural, primary human experience face-to-face and in person..Does this mean that we should reject electronic communication ? Of course not--just that human association in person is superior--and that includes educational experience in person. What thinking person would reject distance learning in the 21st century ? But education in person is typically superior precisely because it involves the body fully, and we are, after all, embodied beings, not simply brains or machines. This position is so obvious that it hardly requires a defense. But if you require one, just check out what happens to infants that are isolated from human touch and contact for long periods.

    Now you may opine all you wish that DL is superior to in-person education, and you may offer a few examples where it is specifically so; but typically, for the basics, human context simply is the best context because of who we are as embodied, emotional beings with flesh. Learning involves and should point to being fully human, not just training the mind or transmitting facts. Values and beliefs come into play (and should be in play) in the educational process; bodies as well as minds are involved. Any other view is simply perverse--like cross-dressing trolls.:)
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2004
  7. Gus Sainz

    Gus Sainz New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Gus is right...

    Why Mrs. Evans, I’m surprised at you! Wasn’t it you who espoused that “meaning in language is dialogically determined by all parties to the interaction so that as context changes, so does meaning?”

    Rather than referring to the mythical creature first found in Scandinavian folklore, the term "troll" (in context) is defined as a troublemaker who deliberately posts provocative, hostile or annoying messages in a public forum, with the specific intent of starting a flamewar (in other words, an agent provocateur). The term “cross dressing” refers to the practice of adopting the manner or the sexual role of the opposite sex.

    My tongue-in-cheek characterization of you as a cross-dressing troll is based on my belief (as usual, backed by solid evidence) that you are not Mrs. Evans (a female) but in reality Dr. Richard L. Evans (a male of the species), a self-admitted agent provocateur. It was not meant to be insulting; it was meant to factual. Moreover, I have already expressed my wish that you petition the administrators of this forum to allow you to post as yourself so that we can put an end to this little travesty.

    Once again, Mrs. Evans, I am shocked. My reference to cross dressing in no way could be construed as being of a sexual nature. It simply referred to the fact that, your allusions to your husband and sororities notwithstanding, I do not believe you are not the individual, or of the gender, you purport to be.

    However, why did you find it necessary to resort to unfounded allegations and veiled threats? (HINT: This is real evidence that you are indeed a troll.)

    Why would I want to prove something I have never contended? Why do you insist on putting words in my mouth and creating straw man arguments? (HINT: This is real evidence that you are indeed a troll.) Why haven’t you provided the evidence that I believe “that the meaning in language comes from dictionaries or lexica and is or should be stable?” Why haven’t you apologized?

    As you have already admitted that you cannot prove it, why do you continue to make this argument? (HINT: This is real evidence that you are indeed a troll.)

    If your position is “so obvious” why haven’t you been able to substantiate it? Why is it that the best you can proffer is yet another irrelevant analogy? (HINT: This is real evidence that you are indeed a troll.)

    This is another straw man argument. Who has opined, as you contend, “DL is superior to in-person education?”

    No one has disputed this. However, you have yet to offer a scintilla of evidence that educating oneself via distance education makes one “less human” (or is that a lesser human being?).

    Nice use of highfalutin terms. Please explain the role an adult human being’s physical body plays in the formation of values and beliefs. The last time you referred to these terms was when you stated that you could not prove that face-to-face education was superior to one attained via distance learning, but your own personal values and beliefs led you to believe it was so. As you could not articulate or provide any basis for these values and beliefs, there was nothing further to discuss. (HINT: Bringing up contentious arguments with no real intention of promoting civil discussion is real evidence that you are indeed a troll.)
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2004
  8. rocco5

    rocco5 member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Why Gus is right...

    Socrates questions the value writing for expression of truth: Phaedrus, (Stephanus number) 274c-279.

    Plato himself questions the value of writng to express his own philosophy: Letter VII, 241c-d. (Some scholars dispute the authenticity of this letter.)

    Since for Plato, the mental vision of truth in the realm of ideas (seen truths) is the strongest form of reality, it would make sesne that he would distrust words as a repository of truth. His entire opus was dedicated to replacing Epic and Tragedy, not expressing a positive philosophy in those written works as has been generally understood by commentators throughout the centuries. Yes, this view flies in the face of 2500 years of philosophical tradition---dosn't make it wrong, however.
  9. rocco5

    rocco5 member

    Substantiate and prove

    "If your position is “so obvious” why haven’t you been able to substantiate it? Why is it that the best you can proffer is yet another irrelevant analogy? (HINT: This is real evidence that you are indeed a troll.) "Gus Sainz"

    Not all positions, claims or propositions can be proved scientifically. They may be arguable but not provable. To prove that social affliation is superior to social isolation or that a full-bodied edcuational experience is superior to those absent full bodies relies more on ordinary life experience than mathematical reasoning. These matters are in the area of value and judgements of value about which people may disagree. It seems to me obvious that the best edcuational context is one in which the full bodies of all participants are involved. This claim is based on a proposition that the body is just as important and essentially joined to the mind/soul/ spirit/ intellect. Death is bad ( a value judgement, too) just because it separates the body from whatever else there is in a human being--can this be proved? Not to your satisfaction--does that keep the proposition from being true--not by a long shot.

    Over all, you do not seem to respect folks who come from a different set of value judgements from your own. You expect that all will use your canons of judgement. It appears that you wish to bully anyone who challengers your views ( an opinion) by drawing out the most absurd conclusions from ther statements--allowable, of course, because linguistic meaning is inherently unstable and susceptible to multiple interpretations, as you well know.

    By the way, I think that it is disgraceful and malevolent for anyone to bother you or your family in any way for your remarks or behavior on a discussion forum. I hope you take the strongest action against such unAmerican, vicious activity. In no way was my remark meant to threaten you, but only to suggest that your insults may not always taken with an agrumentative contexts by some unstable people--no excuse for their wretched actions, however.
  10. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    It doesn't surprise me that you found a quotation from Plato to support this view that you allegedly hold. I say "allegedly" because you've already stated that you don't always mean what you say/write. You've also used pseudo quotations from philosophical camps that are in direct contradiction to each other. This suggests that your beliefs in this matter are inconsistent with each other. You asked if there is a moral obligation to be consistent in ones beliefs. This seems to me to be an unusual question coming from someone who purports to know something of philosophy. In philosophy, consistency is of the utmost importance. You can, of course, believe anything you want and you can change your mind as often as you want. Others, observing this, will come to believe that you don't know your own mind and your credibility will dwindle to nothing. It's close to that now.
    If Plato knew anything about TV, radio, video, the internet, mass communications, digital information systems, etc. then quoting Plato to support your views might actually carry some weight. As it is, Plato means nothing in this issue.
    BTW, I don't believe that anyone ever said that DL was superior to classroom based learning. My own view is that for many people there is no disadvantage in terms of the amount they learn in a DL program. Perhaps more importantly, for many people there is no real choice as their commitments to their jobs and their families do not allow them to sit in that classroom for years and years. You say that DL is inferior and the only evidence you present is a quotation from Plato. Your argument is really rather pathetic. You are, of course, welcome to whatever opinion you like. Just don't believe that you're convincing anyone else.
  11. rocco5

    rocco5 member

    Wrong twice ?

    Sorry, but I think you are are wrong on both counts.

    Plato's view generalizes beyond his statement on writing: he was discussing the only availbale non-personal, information storage and retrieval system of in his day--written documents. The real point is that true learning must be done in dialogue with other humans IN PERSON . You may not agree and Plato is not God, but someone asked for the reference (implying that I didn't know it), so I gave the reference.. If you do not think that history, philosophy and literature can still enlighten us--even if the texts are old and even with the limitations implied by Plato's Socrates, then you challenge the entire basis of humanistic education from Antiquity to present--and that's ok, too. I like radical claims, and you are just agreeing with Plato's Socrates that all true knowledge has to be worked out personally by each individual.

    I have given plenty of points in support of the superiority of in-person education over DL in my debate with Gus. You may not believe my claims and may think them foolish, but they are there. Don't get me wrong, I think DL is useful, helpful and I support it personally; I just think traditonal, face-to-face education is better over all just as I think Princeton is a better university than the University of South Alabama, not that USA is bad, but Princeton is better--a value judgement, of course.

    Since I write heuristically and experimentally, I don't always agree with myself. That doesn't mean Í'm not serious about learning. I just think language is much more slippery and tricky than some of you seem to think that it is. Nor am I so sure that consistency is always the desideratum you imply that it may be. At best, it's a project.

    (By the way, I didn't "find" a quotation from Plato to support my position. My position was suggested by the passage which I referenced for interested parties.) How much Plato have you read in Ancient Greek, or in translation, for that matter???
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2004
  12. Gus Sainz

    Gus Sainz New Member

    Re: Substantiate and prove

    I have absolutely no problem with you stating that something that you cannot prove seems obvious to you. I do have a problem when you categorically insist that, in spite of this, your opinions or value judgments must apply universally to everyone else.

    As most distance education students can attest to the fact that they don't routinely discorporate, dematerialize, or have out of body experiences in the midst of their studies, I fail to see the relevance.

    There you go again with the straw man arguments and universally imposing your value judgments on others. I happen to disagree that death is bad (at least for the individual who dies). And, yes, I have proved this to my satisfaction.

    Please reread my posts. Methinks this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

    If there is a common theme in my communications with you it is that I continually ask for evidence and substantiation for your pronouncements that you insist must be accepted without question because, to you, they are obvious and therefore must universally apply to everyone. You don’t make statements such as, “Because of values I hold dear, I prefer to learn in a face-to-face environment; those who hold similar values would, more than likely, prefer it as well.” What you say is, “All face-to-face education is superior to all distance education.” When asked to substantiate that kind of statement, you simply respond, “Because those are my values.” The implication being, of course, that your values are superior to those of anyone who dares to disagree with your opinion, and therefore your values and beliefs must be universally adopted.

    No one on this forum has stated that all distance education is superior to all face-to-face education. In fact, most everyone will readily admit that there is subject matter that does not lend itself to distance education at all. No one has argued that face-to-face interaction is not an important component of education. In fact, if you search the archives, you will see that many members here (myself included) are of the opinion that distance education, with a few notable exceptions, is not particularly well-suited to a young individual just out of high school; distance education requires a level of maturity, self-discipline, critical thinking, and communications skills that most of these individuals have not yet attained.

    My suggestion is that you should exercise some of that linguistic savvy, practice some argumentative CYA, and employ such terms as “for many” and “in most cases” rather than “all,” “always” or “unquestionably (albeit unprovable).” I also recommend that you try to exercise a bit more logic rather than trying to simply put your feelings or “values” into words. For example, it is extremely difficult to convince someone that the written word is to be distrusted as a repository of truth by citing two written sources in defense of your argument. How would one define that? Paradoxical argumentation? Oxymoronic debating?

    You cannot continue to employ the tactics and phraseology of a troll and expect to not be branded as one.
  13. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    Re: Wrong twice ?

    (I know that my own attempt at experimental writing is rather amateurish but at least it makes sense.)
  14. rocco5

    rocco5 member

    Re: Re: Substantiate and prove

    OK, I''ll agree that I do use ( as I have observed you, too, on occasion use) rhetorical exaggeration as a provocative tactic.

    That I expect my values to be universally accepted is not the case: that's why we have been debating about the relative value of DL to B&M education.

    That the Plato is caught in a trap of (il)logic has, of course, been pointed to before our disucssion. There is the literary fiction of Socrates in an oral conversation that might save Plato himself from a charge of illogic, but that does not apply to my use of the passage as a citation. Paradox is part of life, even if poor logic. Of course, we should use all the tools at our disposal to think, argue, save information and transmit information.

    My real point is that our educations, no matter where they come from, should help us be and realize our full humanity. My experience and personal belief is that, in the main, this is best accomplished in personal settings--a pastoral approach--if you like, and that involves much oral interchange with live persons face to face. I do, however, support DL, think it's great in many cases and do not disparage those who have got an education in this way.

    Now if I am troll, fro whom am I working ? I wish I could get paid as a plant, but I'm just myself. I tend to be outrageous or extreme as a rhetorical posture. I do formulate my views as I go along, so your responses are taken seriously. I surely mean you no disrespect, and I assure you that I would be very happy to help you, if I could, deal with anyone who threatens you or your family for your forum opinions or the style in which you deliver them. Such behavior is intolerable--period. I tend to be skeptical in attitude, but I do truly believe in the right of all to have their say unimpeded and unthreatened. (By the way, this belief is why I really don't like all this banning from various fora except for abuse or threats.)
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 25, 2004
  15. Gus Sainz

    Gus Sainz New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Substantiate and prove

    You are confusing the terms "troll" and "shill." Trolls do what they do for self-aggrandizement and their own perverse pleasure.
  16. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Substantiate and prove

    Gus, Gus, Gus . . .
    It's sad to see that you are still stuck in that old-school mindset that insists that words have actual, fixed meanings. rocco is clearly "experimenting" with her writing and can not possibly be held to account for whatever misinterpretation you might apply to her post. After all, if you can't even begin to understand the franzalum of her dipulifering, then how can you possibly expect to grasp the vkkloegodi of the grobkenmsn?
    It's the hermeneutics, man!
  17. rocco5

    rocco5 member

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Substantiate and prove

    Yes, now you are beginning to catch on: As Heraclitus once said, "panta rhei" or you can't step into the same river twice. Or as Gorgias put it: " There is no Truth; if there were, it could not be expressed; if it could be expressed, it could not be comprehended." (I don't have a Greek font or I'd write it for you--so much nicer in the original: if you don't believe me, ask Janko.)

    The point is that so many of you are mighty cocky about others' ignorance, studipity, fuzzy thinking, trolling, trilling or shilling as well as the sacrosanctity of RA in education. Perhaps it's time to leave the womb and see the world where your provincial, American views on education are less believed. A bit of forum travel might be an educational experience as well as a good course in hermeneutics. I think UNISA offers a doctorate in it--good, respectalbe DL, too.
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 26, 2004
  18. Gus Sainz

    Gus Sainz New Member

    Please don't feed the troll.
  19. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    My mistake.
  20. rocco5

    rocco5 member

    Thanks for the good meals

    Thank you for your generous feedings. I think you have revealed yourself, and I am sure you are very self-satisfied, thinking that you won a debate when you have only demonstrated a very primitive view of language. I, too, have made my point and shall crawl happily back under my bridge for a short nap before before the next unwary, logocentric stanger, who firmly believes in the stability of language, and that TRUTH can be captured therein, crosses over and is gobbled up in wide maw of the infinite linguistic regress.

Share This Page