Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by unpop_opinion23 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

unpop_opinion23

I'm not sure it's right to use the title Dr for someone who only has an honorary doctorate.

We don't say Dr J K Rowling, Dr Barack Obama, Dr William Shatner, Dr Donald Trump.

Why are we calling him Dr Peyton-Jones? He famously doesn't have a PhD.

View on HN

Please let's not go off topic like this. "Dr" isn't even in the HN title above.

Whimsical off topic tangents can gratify intellectual curiosity, but this is just the opposite. Bringing the most objectionable nitpicky detail from an article in to the thread here is not in the intended spirit of the forum. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Yeah "Dr" isn't great. Let's try to stick to "Professor Simon Peyton Jones, fellow of the Royal Society"

A doctorate is a title bestowed by an institution. One way to get a doctorate is to write a lengthy monograph on an acceptable topic and pass some courses. Given his work, I find it odd anyone would be offended by the use of this title.

If he submits a thesis and passes a viva then yeah.

I'm sure he could.

But he hasn't.

A doctorate surely isn't about going through a specific bureaucratic process but rather an institutionalized acknowledgment that a person is capable of acting as an individual contributor in his or her field. I'm sure Mr. Peyton-Jones more than matches this description.

It could just be a mistake because they were talking to a senior member of a research department (who was a professor). I know PhD students are sometimes introduced as Dr when giving talks at conferences due to the same mistake.

The reason is likely because it was written by an American, who, for whatever reason, use all applicable titles at all times (assuming a PhD is not a bad guess for such an academic).

Use of "Dr." is uncommon in the UK, even for people who do have doctorates. Even physicians aren't always titled as "Dr." these days.

I think it's been the tradition for a long time in the UK for surgeons to be Mr/Miss/Ms/Mrs rather than Dr:

https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/patient-care/surgical-staff-and-reg...

Gotta make sure to clarify if she's single or married.

Is that your takeaway from this material? Seriously WTF. Play the ball, not the man.

I mean, I get what you're saying, but they have a point. At least I learned a curious new fact, i.e. that he doesn't have a PhD, not that it matters, but still I thought he did given his work.

I thought it was pretty cool he didn't have a PhD - I used him as an example that you don't need a PhD to be a professor or do world-leading research, and you can find your own path if you want.

That's still an exception. Sure you can, but the lack of PhD is likely going to make things more difficult.

In some domains, trying that stuff is even explicitly frowned upon. Me for instance started to get into applied cryptography, starting 3 years ago, by writing a crypto library¹, and learning whatever was needed to do it properly. Problem was, I had no prior reputation, no PhD in the relevant field, so reactions were mitigated.

Some welcomed the effort, either for its own sake, or because they recognised it filled an under-served niche. The majority however parroted variations of the usual "don't roll your own crypto". Some established authorities here took the time to demonstrate I might not know as much as I appeared to know, without providing much help.

Yet, it's pretty normal. Cryptography is difficult, full of subtle death traps, and is routinely used in contexts where stakes are high (up to and including life or death stuff). Of course you should be cautious when you see a new Maverick around the block. Plus, the domain expert there are few, and very busy. They don't have to give their time to any newcomer. Slapping down the newcomer may be harsh, but it's easier, and possibly more effective than providing help.

Now, 3 years later, I enjoy a pretty good reputation on /r/crypto², but I'm a long way from widespread recognition in the field. Monocypher did find some real users in the embedded market, though.

[1] https://monocypher.org

[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/crypto/

I guess because he is from academia. But in general you are right.

Your statement is correct. I respect Peyton, but the fact is, he doesn't have a real PHd. It makes no sense to me why you're getting voted down. This is what get's me frustrated about people. People don't vote or support statements that are true, they only support statements that they like.

I'm guessing a lot of people won't like my comment even though it's probably true...

The statement “Simon Peyton Jones does not have a PhD, bestowed following submission and defense of a dissertation” is True. However, the qualitative statement the parent comment gives is, roughly: “Simon Peyton Jones has an honorary PhD, which is not a ‘real’ PhD, and therefore should not be referred to casually by the prefix doctor.” This statement is not True in the same sense as the first. There is an explicit qualifier for what the parent considers a ‘real PhD. It may be generally correct, hell it may be completely conventional, to not coded the title of doctor upon someone who did not defend a dissertation, but these are fundamentally conditional statements.

For what it’s worth, I have seems more than 2 dozen talks by Jones and read a vast amount of his written interviews. I have never seen him refer to himself as ‘doctor.’ If fact, I can recall at least one discussion by him about why he did not do a dissertation and that he still thinks it was the right path for himself (although I can not find the reference).

>However, the qualitative statement the parent comment gives is, roughly: “Simon Peyton Jones has an honorary PhD, which is not a ‘real’ PhD, and therefore should not be referred to casually by the prefix doctor.” This statement is not True in the same sense as the first.

No. This is just your qualitative opinion. To refer to someone as Doctor in our culture and our society means they have a MD or a PHD. It's that simple. Institutions who give out Honorary degrees usually ask the recipient to Not refer to themselves as Dr. See source:

https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Honorary_degree

Even though my comment is true with a cited source, you will see that it could get voted down because people don't like it, thereby proving my point that people vote for what they like not for what is true.

> Institutions who give out Honorary degrees usually ask the recipient to Not refer to themselves as Dr. See source:

Emphasis mine. You admit yourself that this is not an absolute standard. Further, this request is directed towards celebrity recipients who receive their degree for PR purposes. Which is not the case with Peyton Jones.

The word "usually" is in favor to my point. The word is used because it is not a law or a rule.

I admit myself it is not an absolute standard. Even someone without a PHD or an honorary degree can call himself a Dr. there are no absolute standards here.

Peyton himself doesn't refer to himself as a doctor. So what does that tell you about his own view on the matter? Perhaps he was asked by the university not to call himself a Dr.

> So what does that tell you about his own view on the matter?

That he is a humble person. This jibes with all anecdata I've ever heard about his character. Occam's Razor and all that.

Many people who have a Ph.D. prefer not to refer to themselves, or be referred to by others, as Dr.

Sure that is valid view.

It would be incredibly biased to vote me down and discount the other supporting evidence that points to the fact it also conveys the possibility that he and others don't see him as a doctor.

In such a pedantic thread, we should at least use his proper surname, Peyton Jones.

It's not pedantic. People are specifically asked by universities not to refer to themselves as doctors when given honorary degrees. This is entirely different from calling someone by their name. Please don't try to manipulate the situation here.

Pedantic: "Characterized by a narrow, often ostentatious concern for academic knowledge and formal rules." The shoe fits exceedingly well, in my opinion.

We can agree to disagree. In my opinion I don't want to be treated by a Doctor who has an honorary MD.

And nor would I. :) An amicable disagreement is a good ending.

> It makes no sense to me why you're getting voted down

Because it comes across as mean-spirited, whether he intended to or not.

You can speak "truth" without being a jerk.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com