There is an objective hierarchy among academic fields and therefore not all PhDs are equal. Before you get upset, hear me out. I am a computational physicist, I solve partial differential equations (PDEs) on a computer to simulate real world phenomena. But if I were to try to understand string theory, it would take me a full year before I can even scratch the surface. Because I don't have the mathematical rigor for it. For a string theorist though, it wouldn't be too difficult to understand what I do. Similarly, I could pick up a psychology paper and understand most of it in a first read. But obviously the reverse is not true. It would be impossible for a psychologist to understand differential equations without any prior exposure to physics or maths. Humanities papers require almost no specialised training. Anybody with common sense and some English language comprehension skills can read, or even write a humanities paper. In fact, read about the Sokal affair. A professor of physics (Alan Sokal) wanted to test the intellectual rigor of a cultural studies journal. He produced some garbage that sounded good and flattered the preconceived notions of the journal editors and voila the paper was accepted. It became a big scandal back in the day. By and large, humanities papers are not very intellectually rigorous or demanding. Hierarchies exist almost in every realm of human endeavour. Not all sports are equally physically demanding. We readily accept that. Let's stop pretending everyone is equal. It is doing more harm than good. Before you come at me with pitchforks, I am talking specifically about academic research. I have deep respect for authors, journalists, musicians, artists, anybody doing anything creative and original.
