I spent my last 5 years in the field of health physics (radiation safety) at a university with a strong emphasis in research. I encountered many a PI who was brilliant in their selected field of research. Yet, when it came to areas outside their expertise, namely radiation safety, they were often ignorant (and reluctant to admit so) or arrogant (and vehemently reluctant to admit so).

BHO is ignorant and arrogant and absolutely could never admit to either flaw. Its not binders that are dangerous, its blinders!

“. . .far too many academics buy into the theories without questioning their foundations.”

As I noted above, they are theories not Newtonian laws, but as Occam’s Beard posted earlier, and it should be repeated often:

In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.

Eric wrote: Keep in mind that academic professionals can be intellectually rigorous within their own fields but be loose thinkers outside of their professional spheres in their personal opinions.

That is largely true, and it’s one reason why I find Plato’s “Ion” to be such a worthwhile dialogue to know about, as it is about the limits of specialized skill and knowledge in other areas of life. Within the humanities today, though, I’d say that Eric’s observation would require even greater qualification as most of the disciplines are so theory-driven, that most academics in those fields know how to be rigorous within the demands of certain fashionable academic theories, but those theories themselves don’t necessarily have much to do with reality or the world at large, aside from the fact that most of them are also pushing political agendas; far too many academics buy into the theories without questioning their foundations.

I agree. I’ve noted in past discussions that what many people deem lack of critical thinking skills might simply be an inability to apply those skills outside of one’s areas of expertise.

A plumber has critical thinking skills, so, too does an electrician and a homemaker. Such skills don’t necessarily need to be accompanied by a B.S., a Ph.D. or an MD. In this upcomng election are we seeing a country beginning to put those critical thinking skills to work?

In his book Arrogance Bernard Goldberg references a study that notes people judge physicians who wear white lab coats superior to physicians who wear blue lab coats. Goldberg’s reasoning is that people have no basis for judging a superior v. an inferior physician so they grab onto any evidence at hand.

Is this what happened in 2008? In a wave of media-generated Bush fatigue, did people vote for Obama because he “wore a white lab coat” to McCain’s blue lab coat? Regardless, now some powerful evidence is in and it appears that the voting public understands that it was snookered in 2008.

Interesting. Is there something different about the bayonets now? In my time, our firearms were kept in the arms room, of course, but we kept our bayonets with the rest of our gear (ie, clipped on the LBV).

Also, many Islamic terrorist leaders have STEM backgrounds.

Late or not, welcome to the discussion. Since you are using the past tense with regard to your humanities teaching, it seems you are yet another member of the group of “I used to work in the humanities, too.”

I think you make a salient point. It’s not just the degree work which contributes to critical thinking skills, but being in a position of teaching the material with some sense of objectivity which also contributes to those skills.

I am certainly hoping for the same sort of outcome. While 60-40 would be amazing, I’m imagining that the upper end for Romney and Ryan could possibly be 54; Obama could bottom out at 45, with others taking the remaining one percent.