Hacker News Reader

Comment by dalke | Hacker News Reader

Mmmm, he's a corporate pharmaceutical researcher with a PhD and not an academic, so while you can call him "Dr." he's not a "Prof."

View on HN

Speaking of things the scientific community needs: less academic snobbery.

That's not snobbery, it's simple (but understandable) inaccuracy. Most people don't know that "Prof" is a job title, "Dr" is a qualification (specifically a degree). You can be either without the other - I know a Prof without a doctorate.

It's akin to confusing a linguist with a polyglot, a top-level accountant with a research mathematician, or someone who writes HTML with someone who programs in Python. They are simply different. Not getting it right is either a mistake, or a demonstration of lack of knowledge of the difference.

EDIT: Added the first parenthetical clause.

For the record, it was a simple mistake. I read the article, glanced at his bio on the left, saw that he led with his academic credentials, and incorrectly inferred a teaching position.

I'd like to say 'Thank You' to the HN community for brutally enforcing both clarity and accuracy. You guys are the best proofreaders ever.

I hope you don't feel too bruised, and my apologies if I contributed to it. I tried to make it clear that it is, as I said, a common and understandable mistake.

Not at all, the thanks are sincere. There's enough sloppy thinking out there, I'd rather not add to it.

no. The analogy would be someone that codes python for his job and someone who teachs python at the u.

And people that teachs despises people that "work" and vice versa.

Most of my friends despises people that teachs ("they suck on research funding for useless purposes") while most of my wife's friends despise people that sell they work on the corporate space ("they do not create any new knowledge").

I personaly think that both are right as they understand the political game at hand and play it.

It's actually surprisingly decent for the most part, one of the main positive changes scientific academic culture's made from traditional academic culture. If you look at 19th-century journals, you can always tell who has a Ph.D. or often even who's won various awards or been granted various honors, because they put all their titles and postnomials wherever they can. Some areas of the humanities still put authors' credentials in the author line and on their badges at conferences, but in most scientific journals you have no idea just by reading the paper which of the names are grad students vs. professors vs. research scientists.

(One exception is the IEEE, which puts author bios with their academic pedigree and current position at the end of every paper, and attaches "IEEE Fellow" in the author list to those authors who are IEEE Fellows.)

In my admittedly limited experience as an interested layman, it seems to have swung to an opposing extreme, if anything. I've come to associate plastering degrees and qualifications all over with someone being a borderline crackpot, while things written by the truly impressive people tend to do little more than give their name and where they work.

I mean, seriously. When was the last time you saw something say "Dr. Knuth"?

When was the last time you saw something say "Dr. Knuth"?

You won't see that very often -- Knuth is particular about including first names (or rather, their initials). He got quite upset with me when I wanted to be "Colin Percival" rather than "Colin A. Percival"...

That said, you will see "Dr. D.E.Knuth" in any sort of formal situation (e.g., a visiting lecture); even if "Knuth" by itself is enough, it's simple politeness to provide a full title.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com