Published by Okay, as far as I know, there isn’t actually a doctorate in Horse Manure, or in Fecal Studies, though given some doctorates that are issued, I think there should be. Suppose there was, what would that doctorate consist of? Let us first note that most doctorates are very specialized. As a D.M., one would be expected to know all of the details of manure, perhaps the breed of horse that produced it, but unquestionably the feed this particular horse was on, any signs of disease detected through irregularities in the manure, etc. In the more expanded field of Fecal Studies, one might become an expert on feces from all manner of animals, not just those whose feces are considered manure. However, if we follow the requirements of some doctorates, there would be no requirement whatsoever that a DM or DFS need ever see any animal, insect, or other producer of feces, nor would it be required that they ever saw feces produced!
Your D.M. or D.F.S. would not make you a biologist; you would not know how the digestive tract developed, much less where the animal came from, or exactly where the feces came from. Your knowledge would be limited to: “There are feces, and I can say certain things by studying those feces, but I do not know exactly how these feces were produced or even if there are animals that produce them, since all I’ve ever seen are feces.” The expanded area of the DFS would allow you to say there are many different types of feces, and perhaps to make some relative judgments about the comparative usefulness of them for fertilizer, but overall you are still not a biologist, not a veterinarian, not a cosmologist nor a philosopher. You know your feces, but that’s it.
The same goes for Doctorates of Divinity or Religious Studies. A Doctor of Divinity knows his manure, but has never seen the animal that he assumes produces it. Similarly, a Doctor of Religious Studies has examined many feces, but has still not seen where the feces come from, and merely makes assumptions and comparative claims about feces. His knowledge is very limited, and he is making many assumptions with very little evidence. One who has studied another field, one with higher requirements where actual evidence and logic are necessary to acquire any degree, and certainly a must for a more advanced degree, might wonder if such doctorates should be awarded at all, and if such fields are worthy of any study beyond mere curiosity, as they essentially are studying ancient hearsay and treating it as if it were valid evidence.
I certainly wonder.
