Dubious
RETIRED MOD
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
- Messages
- 37,717
- Reaction score
- 80
- Country
- Location
Yet you failed to show it despite me repeating your word means nothing....
No but we are talking about the science journal website..I am sure they know what they call science over your English dictionary and English degree
And that is what the who article is about...Your point being?
The title was not my made up so arguing about it like I made it up is completely insane! Logically speaking you were commenting on an article's choice of words which happens to be on a reputable science journal's website
Going personal isnt getting you anywhere! The journal chooses who or what they want to publish...I suggest you write to them if it is giving such a bad rash!
I did I posted their links genius! Science still seen as male profession, according to international study of gender bias | Science/AAAS | News Tell me did I change and MADE UP the title? Question is HAVE YOU gone to the site?
Why not? Just see how you reply....Taking a collective word, blasting a choice of word out of proportion....without backing your rant that it is wrong...
How so? Just coz Science has more established fields than the newly emerging sub fields of other studies doesnt make apples and oranges...
You presenting an argument without backing just coz you said so doesnt work in the real world!
How is it flawed...You are saying you are right then by all means go and correct that wrong title!
Instead of 1 liners I suggest you present something or stop quoting me....1 job? And you will forever hold your obnoxious tongue? Science teacher... A very legit job which you can find on any job search engine!
Before you go in your denial mode, do understand that in the real world evidence weights more than your tantrums!
I said before, go write to the journal, let them know they made a grave mistake
You are denying for the sake of denying without backing it is more like a tantrum!
I have not gone from 1 to the other...I thought suggesting a different approach would help but you love to jump to conclusions....Lovely! Can a collective term not be used as a profession? When people say ARMY it ca mean any of the branches ...When they say CIVIL SERVANT as an occupation...it is a collective term yet it is not wrong to even use it in forms! So kindly either back yourself or just dont quote me!
Finally is Economics a profession?
Mises Daily | Mises Institute
Is doctor a profession? Though there is no degree calling itself BSc. doctor nor MSc. Doctor ....
However, to be fair:
Instead of Wikipedia had you presented me this ...I would have backed off....
“An occupation earns the right to be a profession only when some ideals, such as being an impartial counsel, doing no harm, or serving the greater good, are infused into the conduct of people in that occupation. In like vein, a school becomes a professional school only when it infuses those ideals into its graduates.”
The Big Idea: No, Management Is Not a Profession - HBR
However in the same article :
“True professions have codes of conduct, and the meaning and consequences of those codes are taught as part of the formal education of their members.”
And mind you science (collectively - or even individual since teachers) do have a code of conduct more to do with being a teacher than being a scientist... (in case you get another stroke, I am using it loosely)
From the same article in post 31:
The Big Idea: No, Management Is Not a Profession - HBR
What Is a Profession?
Professions are made up of particular categories of people from whom we seek advice and services because they have knowledge and skills that we do not. A doctor, for example, can recommend a course of treatment for an illness; a lawyer can advise us on a course of legal action. We cannot make these judgments ourselves—and often we cannot judge the quality of the advice we receive. The Nobel laureate Kenneth Arrow wrote about the medical profession, “The value of information is frequently not known in any meaningful sense to the buyer; if, indeed, he knew enough to measure the value of information, he would know the information itself. But information, in the form of skilled care, is precisely what is being bought from most physicians, and, indeed, from most professionals.”
It is true, of course, that most nonprofessional providers of goods and services also have knowledge that we don’t. We cannot, for instance, manufacture a computer or operate a train service. Nevertheless, we can judge whether or not our demand has been met: We know what to expect from our computer, and we know if our train is delayed. The difference is that we might act on a lawyer’s advice and not know its quality, even after the case has been completed. Perhaps she gave us good advice but the case was lost, or vice versa. The outcome might have been more or less favorable had her advice been different. We are in no position to know, because the professional is the expert and we are not. There is an asymmetry of knowledge.
In some cases the knowledge asymmetry is relatively transient. A taxi driver in a foreign town provides us with a service, using his knowledge of the local geography. Once we arrive at our destination, however, we can ask a local whether the driver’s route was the most direct, and thus reduce the asymmetry. But who evaluates legal advice for us? Although we could ask another lawyer, he couldn’t offer a second opinion without being informed of the details of our case—which would amount to hiring two lawyers to do the work of one. Furthermore, the two lawyers might advise us differently, and we’d be unable to distinguish the better advice.
In practice, our lawyer herself implicitly assures us that we can rely on the legal advice she is giving. This relatively permanent knowledge asymmetry is the mark of the true profession; as consumers, we have no option but to trust the professionals with whom we transact. Nevertheless, we might be unwilling to transact at all without some guarantee that the services we receive meet a minimum quality threshold. That requires the existence of professional bodies, whose regulatory role enables consumers to trust their advisers, thereby making a market for professional services feasible.
For a professional body in any given field to function, a discrete body of knowledge for that field must be defined, and the field’s boundaries must be established: When, for example, is something a medical or legal issue, and when is it not? There must also be a reasonable consensus within the field as to what the knowledge should consist of: If physicians cannot agree on how the human body functions, or lawyers on the nature of a contract, no discrete body of knowledge can be said to exist. The boundaries and consensus for any profession will evolve over time, but at any given moment they can be defined—which is what enables formal training and certification. Certification signals competence to consumers who would benefit from it.
Professional bodies hold a trusted position. They have, in effect, a contract with society at large: They control membership in the professions through examination and certification, maintain the quality of certified members through ongoing training and the enforcement of ethical standards, and may exclude anyone who fails to meet those standards. Society is rewarded for its trust with a professional quality that it would otherwise be unable to ensure. This is the model for the legal and medical professions and others, including accounting, architecture, and engineering.
As I will argue, neither the boundaries of the discipline of management nor a consensus on the requisite body of knowledge exists. No professional body is granted control, no formal entry or certification is required, no ethical standards are enforced, and no mechanism can exclude someone from practice. In short, management is not a profession. Moreover, management can never be a profession, and policies predicated on the assumption that it can are inherently flawed.
The Big Idea: No, Management Is Not a Profession - HBR
There is more you can carry on...I only wanted the definition and explanation
Do you think other fields do not have branches? Or just because they are not well defined into separate schools you jump to conclusions?
Some 50 yrs ago, many SCIENTISTS did not draw any particular line between biology, chemistry and physics ....
I wasnt offended I was amused but you dragged it out of proportion...And I already said a number of times, go write to them since you think they are wrong....Since I dont, I wont
