Bret Devereaux

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