I don’t understand something. A person can take a feminism 101 class, and say “I hated it, I disagreed with everything the professor said. It was all wrong. Privilege is not real!” But you never hear that with a Chemistry 101 class, like “I hated it, I disagreed with everything the professor said….
To the contrary. You clearly don’t understand science. Science invites dissent as long as it is justified. People are free to disagree with anything in chemistry as long as they can back up that dissent. That is how science advances: by proving the current model to be incorrect or not completely correct.
you clearly did not read my post, or misunderstood. Yes, science does invite dissent from other scientists. If you are sitting in a Chem 101 class, you are not a scientist, you do not have the credentials. Feminism is the same way. While you do not need a ph.D to be a feminist, you do need credentials to be able to publish and criticize the theories behind academic Gender/Race/Queer theory. You do not get to take one class and decide you know better than the professor.
No, you are thoroughly incorrect. Do you even science? Scientific advances can absolutely come from outside of the PhD. community and even outside of the academic community. If you have a hypothesis which contradicts something in mainstream science and it holds up to scrutiny via peer review, you are tentatively correct regardless of your credentials. Science has no authorities, only evidences.
Whether or not someone agrees with his or her professor on any subject is irrelevant to the objective truth of the matter, and it is asinine to conclude that the less credentialed individual must be wrong because he or she is less credentialed.
I’m not saying that the student is probably correct. I would argue that the opposite is true most of the time. But it is pointless and counterproductive to assume that the person with the highest credentials is always correct. That’s not scientific.