Compare mathematics and the political sciences-it's quite striking. In mathematics, in physics, people are concerned with what you say, not with your certification. But in order to speak about social reality, you must have the proper credentials, particularly if you depart from the accepted framework of thinking. Generally speaking, it seems fair to say that the richer the intellectual substance of a field, the less there is a concern for credentials, and the greater is the concern for content.
Noam Chomsky draws a notable distinction between the fields of mathematics and political science. In disciplines like mathematics and physics, the focus is on the validity of ideas, and one's credentials are of secondary importance. This paradigm allows for a more open exchange of concepts, where the intrinsic value of the argument triumphs over the speaker's formal qualifications.
Conversely, in political science and other social sciences, having the right credentials is crucial, especially when challenging mainstream thought. Chomsky observes that this requirement for formal qualifications diminishes the emphasis on intellectual substance. Essentially, as a field becomes richer in content, the demand for credentials lessens, highlighting the importance of ideas over the individual presenting them.
