Can anyone here name a song, composition or musical inovation that was put forth by a PhD in Music?

PhD stands for Pretty Heavy Drinker. That particularly is appropriate for the Climate degrees based on what these self claimed PhDs on this site. You could lie like that and be sober.

I can see your point. However, on this site they have these intellectually challenged people who are so inept that they can only fall back on a PhD piece of paper. One fellow on here even breaks it down to 'Theoretical Climate' science. Wow! That sure is impressive. Translated what that means is they smoke a joint with each shot of scotch they drink.

These people usually belong to the public sector, as you allude to. The are so inept that they couldn't make it in the private sector. Only in the public sector could you get a medal for overseeing a crises. Like Hillary got for the Benghazi slaughter.

In the private sector you have to get honest results or your are fired. Then you can go get a job in government.

Art is subjective. Once you learn the basics of a particular art--how to play the piano, for example--you have most of what you need in terms of actual education in order to be a good artist. Knowing the "theory" may help some, but it is entirely possible to be a revolutionary, world-changing musician without really understanding music in an intellectual sense.

Science is objective. It doesn't matter how passionate or creative you are, if the answers you're getting don't match the actual physical universe, then *you're wrong*. If you don't understand scientific theory, and if you don't understand what other people know about the field you want to do science in, it is nigh unto impossible to do even decent science, much less world-changing science.

Good scientists frequently take classes, attend symposiums and lectures, and read other scientists' academic papers, so they can keep learning about their field. These things tend to take place in an academic setting, one way or another. Good musicians may jam together, and may listen to each other, but the main thing that a good musician needs to do is practice. Very little formal education is required for a musician to become a better musician, but a lot of formal education is required for a scientist to become a better scientist.

You're funny--I bet you haven't spent much time around colleges, have you? Here's an exercise for you, go to some school that has a good music department and check out the faculty degrees--I think you'll find that most do not have Ph.D.s. It's much more typical for music departments to offer Masters in Music as the terminal degree. Actually, I can name lots of good musicians with Ph.D.s, just not in music. How about Pink Floyd guitarist Brian May, who holds Ph.D. in astrophysics? Greg Gaffan of Bad Religion has a Ph.D. in Zoology. There are plenty more.

By the way, who are these "private sector scientists" that you are talking about? Many of the private sector scientists also have Ph.D.s, or at least Master's. I do work for a private sector meteorology and climate company. The owner has a Ph.D. in Atmospheric Physics, I have a Ph.D. in Earth Sciences.

The Ph.D. trains you to do research in a field. It's possible to not have one and still do good research--I knew an electrical engineer that had written more than 50 papers and was elected a fellow of the IEEE, and he didn't even have a degree, but people like that are few and far between. He just happened to be a genius (he was the chess champion of three states, including California and New York).

And actually I do think the Ph.D.s are the ones that push science, for the most part--although many of them do it while they're graduate students. Please feel free to come up with examples to prove your point--and try to pick someone other than Freeman Dyson.

Now why I wonder (not really) do you pick a field of the arts rather than a science field.

Would you let a surgeon who had just practiced a lot, operate on you rather than a real doctor, no!

This continuing and frankly sad effort to make these sorts of points shows starkly just how little deniers understand real science.

To earn a real science PhD you have to complete a doctoral thesis that takes years and is then reviewed by peers in the field and follows years of study in practical physics and the particular specialty you are working towards, while you seem to think someone like miley cyrus is as educated, save us from uninformed deniers.

In music PhD stands for Practice hard, dude. In some cases, it's Play Hard Dammit, but that amounts to a variation on the theme.

Your question makes about as much sense as asking

Just as passing an exam in a cooking school is not necessary for someone to become a talented chef, why should people think that someone who has passed a bar exam is more qualified to act as a trial lawyer than someone else who didn't?

OR

A good policeman doesn't need to be able to take apart and replace the transmission in his patrol car, so why should anyone care if a surgeon about to operate on a patient has ever taken an anatomy class in medical school or not?

Surely you won't be as silly as to let Sagebrush do open heart surgery on you.

Dr. Dre

He produced 50 Cent

In da club, a definite classic

Just kidding. I shouldn't have to put that qualifier but some people need it.

"Stupidity" by Dr Feelgood?