Q: "You said to ask for proof, so what is the proof you know enough about
bones so we can trust what you say about the safety of boiled bone?  What
are your credentials?"
 
I generally refuse to discuss credentials because it is a ridiculous and
futile exercise in one-upping that has little or no real value for any
particular argument.  I don't have to have ANY credentials if I am right,
and having all the credentials in the world will not help when I am
wrong.  The demand for (or citing of) credentials is a common ploy of
people on the losing side of the argument, made to draw attention away
from a lack of cohesive response.  In other words, they lack the ability
to respond to the debate, so they call into question the person making
the statements, or suggest that their own credentials are all the proof
they need, rather than supply testable data or cite published reports
('How do you know?' ... "Because I have a PhD in the field!" ... 'Yes,
but what are the data that PROVES your contention?' ... "Because I have
a PhD in the field?")  For ANY controversial question, you can find
"credentialed experts" to support either side; just look at the current
controversy in human diet fads.  The question should NEVER be "Was Atkins
smarter than all the credentialed professional nutritionists in America?"
Maybe so, but the REAL question should be, "Does the available data
support one diet over another?"
 
Also, not all PhDs are equal; the criteria for becoming an expert in
one field might entail significantly more academic effort compared to
another.  I am NOT implying a difference in intellect, but it is true
some programs are far more challenging than others, while some are so
competitive that only the finest people can apply.  Finally, some
academic fields are quite narrow in terms of depth of study, while others
require an extremely broad and deep education.  My field of study is one
of the later, requiring EXTENSIVE training in zoology, biochemistry,
nutrition, archaeology, taphonomy, ecology, anatomy, osteology,
odontology, disease, statistics, evolutionary theory, modeling theory,
and more.  My interests reflect this diversity of knowledge; not only am
I a member of the FML, but also belong to nearly a dozen other mailing
lists, including those with topics encompassing natural selection, human
evolution, nutrition, morphometrics, predator ecology, and several
zooarchaeological lists (now you know why it takes so long for me to
respond to emails).  These lists give me access to top people in the
field; for example, when I saw Dr. Kemmerer's comment about the lifespan
of dogs, I was not only able to utilize my personal books and journal
articles for information, I was ALSO able to ask two wolf scientists to
confirm the published data.  The people on these lists include laypeople,
undergraduates, and degreed people all the way up to PhD, BUT rarely are
credentials mentioned, and I have NEVER seen ANYONE call into question
the ideas of another based on credentials OR suggest a person was correct
because of a degree.  Why?  Because they are DISCUSSION lists; that is,
a place to discuss issues in a democratic manner.  Bashing opposing
viewpoints with the "credential club" only has the ultimate effect of
discouraging discussion by people afraid of confronting an "expert."
One should focus on the IDEA, not the person.
 
As for my expertise when it comes to bone, just read my latest paper:
Church and Lyman 2003 Small fragments make small differences in
efficiency when rendering grease from fractured artiodactyl bones by
boiling.  Journal of Archaeological Science 30:1077-1084.  I have three
others on bone in the pipeline, including one on bone nutrients.  I have
papers published and in review on other subjects.  I have thousands of
scanning electron micrographs, hundreds of microanalyses, and uncounted
fragments of bone generated during this study.  I won't address the issue
of credentials again, but I will say there a hell of a lot of people
demanding credentials who singularly lack them themselves, yet relish
the spotlight of being considered an "expert."  As for myself, I DON'T
consider myself an expert; I'm a just another student of "ferretology"
with a hell of a lot more to learn.
 
My honest belief, and I have stated this MANY times in person AND on this
list, is credentials are valueless if the message being offered is
erroneous.
 
This concludes the bone-eating series of posts.  Thank you for your
understanding, attention, and thoughtful questions.
 
Bob C
[Posted in FML issue 4173]