Thread by @BretDevereaux

I find the current odd twitter debate over if PHD non-MDs should get the honorrific prefix 'doctor,' particularly in news or formal contexts really very telling.

First, 'doctor' meant 'teacher' (Latin, because ofc it is) long before it meant physician. It was ours first. 1/13

...it was only later that 'doctor' - which again, means something like 'teacher' or 'learned one' - was used of physicians, out of, one assumes, understandable respect for the learning required of a physician.

But what is most telling isn't the history of the term... 2/13

...but the modern values being suggested here. Dr. isn't the only honorific prefix common in English.

We of course also have honorific prefixes for religious figures (Rev., Fr., Pr., Rabbi, Ven., etc.). I don't hear any complaining when cleric gets a Rev. in his news chyron 3/13

Military ranks also get their own honorific prefixes, with a complete set of handy abbreviations for those news chyrons (which I focus on because they were partly the origin of the debate). It was *always* Lt Col Vindman, as damn well it should have been, in the context. 4/13

Our society has singled out a number of professions or achievements which it deems worthy of those special honorifics. This is not new (indeed, 'Doctor' of academics dates from the Middle Ages!).

And no one is suggesting a *general* retreat from honorifics. 5/13

This isn't some principled egalitarianism. The sort of folks who think any academic who expects their honorific is a jerk do not generally think the same about Colonels, medical doctors or reverends in my experience. Especially the first or last ones.

6/13

And the problem isn't confusion either. If it was, we could just make up a new honorific for the medical professions (since the academics had this one first). If we want Latin, 'Medicus' would be the obvious choice. Dr. X and Med. Y would be pretty easy and obvious. 7/13

No, it is just this one honorific - Dr. - and only for its original holders, PhD academics which is under scrutiny. And I think that lays the rank anti-intellectualism of the enterprise bare. It is the cry of "if I can't understand your expertise, you must not have any." 8/13

Now, of course we're talking about formal and professional settings. Obviously, anyone I am on a first-name basis with isn't going to use any sort of honorific. No one demands honorifics hanging out at the bar, or lounging on the couch. 9/13

But to solve the etiquette question: in a situation/relationship where normally you would say Mr. or Ms., you should say/write Dr. for a PhD-haver. Just as Maj., or Fr., or Rev., or Rabbi or whatever. (I personally wish we'd bring back 'Master' for skilled craftspeople) 10/13

Now, I don't go by Dr. Bret Devereaux on twitter, or on my blog, in part because I don't see this as that kind of formal space.
But also in part because - as a white dude with receding hair - quite frankly, I can get away with it. 11/13

Which is the other end of this thing. People look at my picture and - after processing the horror of it - *assume* I know what I'm talking about, because I look the part.

But many learned Doctors don't get that benefit, and I think they are right to insist on the title. 12/13

They have earned it, and earned the respect it implies.

So yes, PhD-havers are called 'Doctor.' By long and ancient custom. Unless you want to take a principled stand against *all* honorifics, you should keep to this one too. 13/13