Daniel asked:

Do I really need to be a philosophy graduate or teacher to answer a philosophical question when I
already think I'm a philosopher even though I do not have these qualifications?

============

Do you really need to be a physics graduate or teacher to answer a question in physics, even though
you already think you're a physicist?

Do you really need to be a mathematics graduate or teacher to answer a question in mathematics,
even though you already think you're a mathematician?

Do you really need to be a psychology graduate or teacher to answer a question in psychology, even
though you already think you're a psychologist?

Do you really need to be an economics graduate or teacher to answer a question in economics, even
though you already think you're an economist?....

What you need is about 5-10 years of intense education, including reading, peer reviews, paper
writing, publishing, etc. You can get that in other ways, yes. Do youhave that background? If not, you
are no more qualified to answer philosophy questions than you would be to answer questions in the
above or other fields requiring deep technical knowledge, as philosophy does (and yes, I dohave that
background).

Steven Ravett Brown

My apologies to Steven Brown (and other well certified professional philosophers), but I must
seriously disagree with his contention that it takes such intense formal education and background to
be qualified to answer philosophical questions. I think it very much depends on the nature of the
question involved.

Even high schools students are sufficiently qualified to answer some questions in physics,
mathematics, psychology, economics, among many other topics. And most of the more interesting (in
my opinion) philosophy questions do not require the intensive educational background to either
comprehend or approach an answer.

I exclude here those questions of the form "what did do-and-so mean by such-and-such." I will grant
that understanding or contrasting how various philosophers understood some issue does require the
intensive study that Steven suggests.

But it doesn't take such study to form an opinion on, say, whether the Coherence Theory or the
Correspondence Theory of Truth is preferable. And as long as one is prepared to accept the
criticisms of others, I see no reason why anyone who understands the meaning of the concepts
employed, can not offer an answer to a philosophical question of this sort.

Stuart Burns