PhD's are awarded for demonstrating a capability to perform research - critical thinking necessary to push back the frontiers of knowledge and add understanding and clarity to the work of those who came before them. Masters are awarded as a participation trophy for those who don't cut it in their PhD program, or for fields which are relatively static.

You can get a PhD and be a dogmatic yes-man. And you can be a critical thinker in a field where a masters are as high as it really goes. But it surprises no one that those who think and question are the ones who look at the data and say 'no', while the ones who only ever learned to regurgitate the answers their professors wanted to hear, didn't even need to see the data before deciding to say 'yes'.

And if you're sister marrying hill folk, you've met enough of those retard test studiers to know where their decision making leads that you can spot an argument made by one from a mile away and you know not to trust it. You don't need to be smart enough to make a good argument yourself, only smart enough to spot a dumb argument. And that's not hard.