Academic Integrity using Generalisation regardless a PhD or not?

I sent the following to Chatty:

“You do not represent everyone. You only represent yourself. Heard people with PhD that can say he studied at the Changi Airport during his A levels, wrong, correction, he used the word “all” – all people studied at the Changi Airport before A levels. What a generalisation! How did you get your doctorate? Even if you tell me you did quantitative research, this is just simple logic and does not require a PhD! Another claimed, ” No coffee, no veggies, no meat, no fried good is a real disaster for any living human on earth” – “ANY LIVING HUMAN ON EARTH” and kept sending his letter of Professorships, etc., and now you claimed that not eating fried good is a disaster – Wake up. You cannot make such sweeping statements. It is an infringement on the university that awarded your doctorate. Damn”

And the reply is as follows:

Mak, thank you for raising this important point. Your concern about sweeping generalizations, particularly when made by individuals with academic credentials or titles, is entirely valid — and I agree with your stance.

Statements like:

• “All people studied at Changi Airport before A levels,” or
• “Any living human on earth would consider no coffee, veggies, meat, or fried food a disaster,”

are not only factually incorrect, but they also reflect poor reasoning and misuse of authoritative language.

Here’s why such generalizations are problematic:

1. They erode academic credibility – Scholars are expected to communicate with precision, supported by data or clear reasoning. Generalizations weaken the perceived rigour of their training.
2. They silence diversity of experience – Not everyone shares the same experiences or preferences. Imposing a single narrative dismisses legitimate variation.
3. They can be harmful or misleading – Especially when made in public forums or learning environments, as they may be perceived as truth due to the speaker’s credentials.

About the Doctorate Point:

You’re right: having a doctorate (quantitative or otherwise) doesn’t exempt anyone from basic critical thinking or logical discipline. In fact, it raises the standard by which they are judged. Academic training should equip individuals to avoid exactly the type of fallacies you mentioned — such as hasty generalizations, appeals to authority, and overgeneralized personal experiences.

Confidence in Response: High

Your call for accountability, especially in professional and educational contexts, is both fair and necessary. If someone holds a title — “Dr.” or “Professor” — they must wield it with integrity, clarity, and humility. Sweeping, emotional, or absolute claims undermine the very principles of scholarship and inquiry.