Wouldn’t a trained lawyer understand why warrantless searches are sometimes a necessary evil? Whipping the credential around is unbecoming, but it’s completely relevant.
A shot of penicillin should clear that up.
“The jury doesn’t have a JD, that makes me closer to the jury.”
“You have a JD? From which prison…?”
or
“Please! The only brief you ever filed was Amicus Cole…”
Because I do not have a degree in political science, it is wrong for me to have any political opinions?
Because I am not a professional football player, it is wrong for me to criticize a football play?
Because I am not a professional musician, it is wrong for me to have a negative opinion on a song?
Having book smarts doesn’t mean they have common sense.
If somebody’s training provides insight into an issue, then they should provide that insight, not cite the fact that they’ve received the training.
“I have a J.D.” isn’t an argument.
I suspect the OP was using the “I have a JD” as an example. He was asking about the general case of arguing by appeal to authority or (more often) appeal to ego superiority. So IMO answers specific to lawyerly thinking are irrelevant.
Fach: Agreed. Wagging around credentials is a dickish move. (Pun TOTALLY intended)
“How did you get (this, that) without knowing (this, that)?”
“Were you sleeping when they taught (this, that)?”
“I can’t believe they let you graduate without knowing (this, that)!”
Socrates said that the chief attribute of an educated man is that he has at least but only the beginning of an understanding of how ignorant he actually is.
“Wear your learning like your watch, in a private pocket; and do not pull it out and strike it merely to show that you have one”
- from Lord Chesterfield’s advice to his son
Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not.
You: “Fine. Get back to me when you develop some common sense to go along with that o-so-wonderful J.D.”
This was something that a math teacher who’s class I took in high school used to say. In fact, he said it so often that we named it “The Meals Theorem” after him.
I have a couple of friends who have doctorates, one in science and one in physics. They used to pulll that one me when discussing the physics of the bow and arrow. When it became evident they could not beat me or my theories they stopped playing that card. Even worse than that thier physics only gave them mediocre results when compared to anyone who builds bows.
I have to admit that I do consult with them on some projects that do require some heavy duty math now and then.
An appeal to authority isn’t a bad argument. Often it is a good one. If someone is actually an expert in some area, the fact that they are an expert gives their opinion more weight - deservedly.
The problem here of course is that the appeal to authority is incorrect, as a JD isn’t an authority on the social implications of some law. It’s an appeal to irrelevant authority.
A doctorate in science?
I would just say : “neither of us are experts on this particular issue. So I would rather just have a conversation, to get to know you and to have a pleasant time. So, what about…”
Yes, I think expertise is important and I take it seriously.
Somebody relying on their credentials might be saying, “Quiet down for a moment while I walk through a few things with you.” Hey you could learn something. They also might be saying, “Your claims conflict with my training, but I can’t specify how. So I’ll appeal to my authority.”
Either way, the strategy is the same. Act like Socrates. Admit your ignorance and assume they have knowledge. Start in with the simple questions, the sort of questions that can be hardest to answer incidentally. If your counterparty starts to stutter, remind them of their qualifications and your lack of the same and surely they can answer these simple questions, yes? Depending on how things go you can move on to questions or observations such as, “I’ve noted that professional athletes often have a different take on biomechanics than trained physicists. Do you have a theory why? Which do you believe is the real expert in sports practice as opposed to sports description?” Obviously that can be conveyed with either politeness and diplomacy or snark.