What does having a Ph.D. have to do with flying a Cessna?
Here’s a book that might help you with reasoning and conclusions:
If it isn’t difficult, why does it require four years of study and a B.S. degree?
More importantly, why do you keep refusing to answer my question about why the co-pilot didn’t notice that Abagnale was a fraud?
Why you don’t use grammar or logic?
What? Flipping a switch?
If Abagnale did any maneuver not only the co-pilot but also the passengers would notice it.
So do it.
Don’t ask me, you’re the one who said it.
That is not an answer to my question. Once again, why didn’t the co-pilot notice that Abagnale was a fraud?
Maybe the co-pilot’s B.S. degree was in Sociology.
Because when the airplane is set on course the pilot does not need to do anything.
If Abagnale made a turn not only the pilot, but the passengers as well would notice something.
Engaging the autopilot is in the same relationship to flying the airplane as engaging cruise control to driving a car. It is an elementary thing to do. Hope this helps. Or you don’t even drive?
And what does that tell us about pilots?
That their job is boring.
However they still have to land the airplane. And this does require some skills.
Are you claiming that Frank Abagnale successfully landed an airplane, or was he able to impersonate a pilot without ever having to land an airplane?
Why is sociology/anthropology usually the focus of these denunciations of the academy? I’ve never heard someone claim that dance, art, or pottery are worthless pursuits in academia because they do not “truly” follow scientific methodology or are subject to evaluations that are not objective. While sociology/anthropology may (or may not) have heterodox methodologies that is partly because their objects of research are not capable of being measured and identified in the same way that a planet’s trajectory can be predicted by an astrophysicist.
The founders of other religions lived a lot earlier than 19th century. Besides not only Joseph Smith and Brigham Young were prophets, but every subsequent LDS president was a prophet. The current president is a prophet. And has 12 apostles.
And why should we not believe Abagnale? Yes, he sinned. But he repented. He became a good Catholic, a good husband, a good father, a good man in general. A truthful man.
Oh, so this is a thread about religion. That explains a lot, really.
Because a PhD is a crown jewel of achievement. It qualifies you to produce peer-reviewed research, which is a wonderful thing. Which, as you said, is on par with emergency water landing of a jet aircraft.
Those capable of higher achievements are surely capable of lower ones. So why such an exalted being as yourself can’t make a regular landing of a Cessna on a paved runway?
You are going to keep on bringing up that argument in one form or another no matter how many people tell you how many times and ways that it proves or rebuts nothing, are you?
This is ridiculous, and sheds light on your “if the president doesn’t need a PhD why should the head engineer at NASA need one?” argument from earlier.
Achievements, skills, and tasks don’t exist on a linear spectrum. A mechanical engineer isn’t necessarily going to make a good geneticist; a cunning general isn’t going to make a great peacetime diplomat.
Now, could an average PhD learn to land a plane if they really wanted to or had to? Probably, assuming there’s no handicaps that prevent them from flying a plane, but that’s because the skills tested in getting a PhD (dedication, perseverance, discipline, critical thinking) lend themselves to learning things in general. However, that doesn’t mean that it’s necessarily going to be easy for them unless their PhD is in aeronautic engineering or something (and even then).
Likewise, positions of greater or lesser power and importance may put people in charge of others whose fields they’re not well versed in. This is even true in academia, where most of the faculty is an expert in a very narrow field. It’s unlikely the department head is well versed enough in all the subfields to make meaningful contributions to them, even if he or she is a genius in his or her own particular subfield. Likewise, in positions of extreme power, like the presidency, it will necessarily put you above many organizations that you’re not well versed in. Now, in an ideal world the person in power would learn as much as they are reasonable able about those fields – and I wish politicians were a bit more interested in learning more about science, sociology, and engineering before legislating and controlling it than they are now, but it’s sloppy logic to say that if B is in a position above A, then B is necessarily (or should necessarily be) more knowledgeable than A in A’s area of expertise. It’s simply not practical in this world to expect someone in control to be capable of contributing to all 500 billion highly technical and complex fields and subfields that exist.
In this particular case this happens because Prof. Abagnale taught sociology.
In another thread we do discuss art and literature
Found this amusing.
Self-taught pilot pleads guilty to joyriding in stolen plane
Why did Frank Abagnale claim that he had taken control of a commercial jet in midflight but did not claim that he had ever published a peer-reviewed sociological study?
What handicap prevents you?
Being a quadriplegic, for one. Good luck getting Stephen Hawking to successfully fly a plane. (Well, maybe with a metric ton of specialized equipment just for him, but definitely not a typical airplane given the fact that he can barely move his fingers).