While you’ve been checking titles, have you noticed many other writers referring to themselves as the smartest man in the world?
When I thought about it at all, I always thought the title Science Advisory Board had about the same weighty tone as Cecil’s title.
Does the SDSAB get to hang out with Cecil and quaff a few beers?
Are you kidding? Of course not! Cecil doesn’t let mere mortals that close to him! On the other hand, I have been to Ed’s home, drank his beer, and ogled his wife. 
My CV:
Mike Warns[sup]1[/sup], AKA dropzone, male, 53, BA in Anthropology from a school known more for its recent massacre than for its academics, which is a rotten shame, both because of the deaths and because its Anthro department is starting to come into its own. Used the degree to wangle a series of drafting and engineering jobs[sup]2[/sup], where I was considerably more likely to find a job without a PhD.
Despite an academic emphasis on Archaeology, my degree was little help in my report on archaeological booby traps, nor will my occasional drinking to excess help much in my upcoming report on Ripple wine because I was never able to stoop that low. Lower, sure, but I skipped that particular level.
I do research for an author friend and she doesn’t see my lack of any particular credentials as a limiting factor–and I used to be her student, so she should know better–so I end up writing poetry or explaining how to hide kiddie porn on a hard drive or, well, I can’t say anything about the upcoming stuff ;). Overspecialization is a product of the 20th century and a reliance on credentials leaves no room for the gifted amateur. I’m not comparing myself with gifted amateurs like Charles Darwin; sometimes the gift is just a willingness to work for free, and with a Staff Report the emphasis is on “work.” These things don’t just come out of some quick Googling. In fact, I’ve been going through the backlog of questions to yank the ones that can be answered with the same Google skills they’re teaching fourth graders these days.
I have one report I have been working on, off and on, for years as I translate articles from a language I don’t speak and try to find someone willing to comment on someone else’s mtDNA research. As a result, I’m almost becoming a minor authority on that topic and am at least as qualified to write an article for a general-interest magazine as any reporter or degreed professional.
You want footnotes? I got footnotes!
1 - Real name given because it’s in my bloody email address, already. Hardly a secret to somebody who makes the slightest effort. Want to know more about me? Google me. I’m the Mike Warns who doesn’t race yachts or vintage sports cars (I don’t know who they are, but I envy them), nor am I the one who works for St Paul’s bus company (he’s the son of my great-uncle Joe; I don’t envy him nearly so much). Oh, and I’m also not the one in all the soap opera summaries. I’m the boring one.
2 - Real conversation with a boss several years after he hired me: “So what if I was the only applicant with a degree. Anthropology has nothing to do with elevator control panels!”[sup]3[/sup] “It showed you could stick to something and finish it.” “It was the early Seventies. What was I supposed to do, join the Army and go to Vietnam?”
3 - Word to the wise: Only ask your boss why he hired you after a good review AND you’ve gotten him drunk. No, I didn’t need a doctorate to figure that out.
Wait, do you actually read The Straight Dope? Not the message board or the Staff Reports, the real, original Straight Dope by Cecil Adams? Because that column is full of snarky, sarcastic, pretentious bullshit that makes the phrase “Science Advisory Board” sound like the pinnacle of frank humility. As I recall, Cecil himself coined the phrase “Straight Dope Science Advisory Board” for a group of (probably anonymous) mooks he found on Usenet. It was obviously a joke when he wrote it, and it is still a pretty obvious joke, as tim314 pointed out–it sounds like a crazy think tank, not something anyone would really call themselves.
As far as knowing what people’s backgrounds and credentials are, the fact is that they could post whatever they want about the SDMB, and it wouldn’t change the fact that they’re a bunch of people you read on the Internet. They could all be dogs. Rather than assuming some undescribed level of expertise, the critical thinker assumes only “This anonymous Internet guy sure sounds (or doesn’t sound) like he knows what he’s talking about.” That’s the best assurance you’re ever going to get here. Advertising real (hopefully, anyway) titles and credentials would only serve to increase uncritical trust in the Staff Reports. If I tell someone something I read in a Staff Report, I say “I read this on the Internet. It seemed well researched and intelligent.” I don’t expect my friends or colleagues to give it more credence if I add “Oh, and the person who posted it, with the username bigbootylover88, also claims to have a PhD and be a supergenius.” Nor should I. The anonymous people who write Staff Reports under silly pseudonyms have to earn my trust like any other anonymous Internet person. They mostly have.
Well folks, I would say a further implication of** Czarcasm**’s (really unarguable) decision to move this thread to this forum is that we avoid the potential wankfest this thread had the potential to turn into. We have someone who can make a decision, make it. I understood Ed to say:
A. He was going to keep the SDSAB
B. He would look at the make-up of the SDSAB, cull it and presumably share what vigor comes into membership in the future with us.
He didn’t mention re-branding the name or posting broad and still very, very anonymous CV’s. What I say to all that is dust my hands together and say “Days Work”. To push it further just seems churlish and has the potential to turn what I think was a healthy discussion into something destructive (already there were accusations of dark ulterior motives for this thread and semi-subtle invitations to hit the bricks if I didn’t like it, questioning if I even read the dope – all totally unnecessary).
Again, to the members of the SDSAB who took this personally, I understand it, but this was not aimed at you personally.
I am not ignoring the subsequent posts – just I think we have our answer.
Well… yeah.
The accuracy of Staff Reports are backed by their history of accurate reporting under the same editor, and their scrutiny in COSR and by the rest of the world.
This to me is worth much more than knowing that the writer has credentials. It would be interesting to know more about the history of someone who wrote an interesting report, but it wouldn’t do much to help me decide on the accuracy of the report.
When the credentials and the capabilities of the poster are dissimilar to a significant degree, the Straight Dope is one place where that is highly likely to be noticed, and commented upon by the significant number of very smart people that read the boards.
It is possible to have PhD, and be an idiot. It’s also possible to be extraordinarily knowledgeable about something highly abstruse, and not have formal educational credentials in the form of acronyms after one’s name. This is a place where it’s the case that argument by authority is laughable, since half the folks here are authorities on something, and most of the rest are actually paying attention to what you say.
If you have an acronym, or even a nifty new expanded phrase telling me you are an authority, I hope it makes you feel good. It doesn’t affect how I read your posts. I have learned the hard way that questioning the accuracy of a poster’s information is best done first as on line research, then as a post in reply. Folks here just might know their stuff. It’s good exercise. And when I have an on line report which has “authoritative” information I find questionable, General Questions is the place where I post a thread to find out if I am an idiot, or this guy is just whacked.
Yeah, SDSAB is a title that I find as authoritative as PhD. But that’s not enough to suspend my inherent distrust of authoritative answers that don’t seem to be right.
Tris
Very, very well put. I feel exactly the same.
I’d put much more stock in a Ph.D. when it comes to doing original research, especially in their field, but I’d give an SDSAB member the edge when it comes to doing the kind of literature review and presentation we expect for a Staff Report.
I have a different take. Let’s get rid of Cecil. I find the SDSAB’s articles much more enlightening than the uninformative comedian schtick.
Oh, wait, I’ve already said that.
Judas lives!