Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

magazine.jhsph.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 79 posts

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#11

Post by mattmanser »

vacri wrote: post #6
thaumasiotes wrote: post #2

Sure, let's "put back" something that was never there in the first place. Philosophiae Doctor is just the name of the degree. Where did it come from? Let's ask wikipedia ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_of_Philosophy ): > In most of Europe, all fields other than theology, law, and medicine were traditionally known as philosophy, and in Germany and elsewhere in Europe the basic faculty of (liberal) arts was know…

Philosophy is also responsible for the scientific method and things like the null hypothesis. There's a strong tendency for 'hard science' folks to look down their noses at philosophy, but the truth is that the fundamentals of their research is squarely due to the philosophy. Philosophy is responsible for scientists developing the methods of rigorous observation. Source: I once looked down my nose at philosophy, then…

You've got it backwards. It's not like a bunch of philosophers sat round and came up with the scientific method and until they did that there was no science. Scientists experimented and tried to justify their conclusions (sometimes badly or incorrectly), which lead to the philosophy of science. Karl Popper was a recent philosopher, not a forming giant of science, he rationalized the scientific method with falsifiability after the fact, after Einstein's Theory of Relativity, for example.

It's also easy to get the two mixed up as Philosophy basically used to be the nascent 'science'.

It's also worth reading this before you get too attached to philosophy:

http://www.paulgraham.com/philosophy.html

Ultimately present day philosophy, last I looked and certainly since Wittgenstein, is all about playing with word meaning and almost upfront about it, but pg argues in reality it always was like that.

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#12

Post by mlvljr »

nobodyshere wrote: post #5
teekert wrote: post #4

I had a friend/college from Russia, he told this is the case there. During the thesis defense there is a section reserved for Philosophy (of life, meaning etc). Any Russians care to elaborate?

Can't elaborate on the thesis, but prior to enrolling for a PhD program you indeed have to pass a philosophy exam. This is usually considered the most difficult. Passed it in summer.

There's also another one, being a part of the so called "Candidate Minimum" (normally to be taken after taking a one-year philosophy (or philosopy of science -- for engineers) course) :)

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#13

Post by teekert »

kartikkumar wrote: post #9
teekert wrote: post #4

I had a friend/college from Russia, he told this is the case there. During the thesis defense there is a section reserved for Philosophy (of life, meaning etc). Any Russians care to elaborate?

At my university (TU Delft), we have to include a set of premises/statements that are open for questioning during the thesis defense. You're supposed to list ten statements and the usual breakdown is that a few will be on the specific topic that you're graduating on, a few will be about the field of research at a whole and the rest are "philosophical musings". I've started thinking about mine and I actually think it'…

I love that tradition but the University where I did my PhD (Leiden, 25 km from Delft) very (very) strongly discouraged this, a shame in my opinion.

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#14

Post by Grue3 »

nobodyshere wrote: post #5
teekert wrote: post #4

I had a friend/college from Russia, he told this is the case there. During the thesis defense there is a section reserved for Philosophy (of life, meaning etc). Any Russians care to elaborate?

Can't elaborate on the thesis, but prior to enrolling for a PhD program you indeed have to pass a philosophy exam. This is usually considered the most difficult. Passed it in summer.

I remember taking this. I had to answer something about socialism or marxism or whatever (I remember having to name the prominent socialist thinkers). This was in the 2000s, by the way. I got 3 points out of 5. I passed the other exams, math and English, perfectly, and that was not enough. I only got accepted due to personal recommendation of my scientific advisor. Since then I'm of the opinion that "Ph" is complete bullshit.

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#15

Post by rhaps0dy »

emanuelev wrote: post #10
jmmcd wrote: post #7

> We need big thinkers We need some, but there aren't anywhere near enough big-thinking jobs for all these PhDs. > The success of science and technology will always lead to new ethical dilemmas. How do you spot them and try to work with society before they become problems? A better appreciation of ethics is likely to address what has become an epidemic of retractions in the scientific literature. All the recent retra…

I quite agree that the post PhD job market is kind of challenging as there are few companies tackling big questions. However, if you forget the job market, the argument the guy is making is absolutely spot on. There's a solid trend in academia that is "publish early, publish fast". Although one might argue that it actually makes sense (career-wise or whatever), it is intrinsic in such a system to penalise pursuing bi…

>the PhD (and the few years after) are the most productive in a researcher's life

Source? I'm curious.

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#16

Post by 4ad »

rhaps0dy wrote: post #15
emanuelev wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I quite agree that the post PhD job market is kind of challenging as there are few companies tackling big questions. However, if you forget the job market, the argument the guy is making is absolutely spot on. There's a solid trend in academia that is "publish early, publish fast". Although one might argue that it actually makes sense (career-wise or whatever), it is intrinsic in such a system to penalise pursuing bi…

>the PhD (and the few years after) are the most productive in a researcher's life Source? I'm curious.

Not a "real" study, but it appears to be true: https://youtu.be/Mpsc-BxAiHs?t=1537

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#17

Post by ThomPete »

mattmanser wrote: post #11
vacri wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Philosophy is also responsible for the scientific method and things like the null hypothesis. There's a strong tendency for 'hard science' folks to look down their noses at philosophy, but the truth is that the fundamentals of their research is squarely due to the philosophy. Philosophy is responsible for scientists developing the methods of rigorous observation. Source: I once looked down my nose at philosophy, then…

You've got it backwards. It's not like a bunch of philosophers sat round and came up with the scientific method and until they did that there was no science. Scientists experimented and tried to justify their conclusions (sometimes badly or incorrectly), which lead to the philosophy of science. Karl Popper was a recent philosopher, not a forming giant of science, he rationalized the scientific method with falsifiabil…

You are both right and wrong. Philosophy (asking questions) and science (testing questions) are depending on each other.

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#18

Post by dagw »

4ad wrote: post #16
rhaps0dy wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the PhD (and the few years after) are the most productive in a researcher's life Source? I'm curious.

Not a "real" study, but it appears to be true: https://youtu.be/Mpsc-BxAiHs?t=1537

It's a common view, but a number of studies seem to contradict of at least question this:

http://openaccessweek.org/profiles/blogs/age-amp-science-do-...

"A study in 2002 examined 50 Nobel prize winners from each of the three prizes for physics, chemistry and medicine. This study recorded the age of the scientists when they had done the work that was rewarded with the prize and found that the centre points for age were: physics, 34; chemistry, 37; medicine, 40 (Marchetti C, 2002.) A study published in 1993 investigated a similar data set and concluded that scientists tend to be the most productive in their mid-thirties (Stephan & Levan, 1993.) Finally, a 2008 study of 300 randomly selected bioscientists revealed that the most productive age was 36-40 (Falagas et al., 2008) based on the number of citations from their publications. These studies all indicate that a scientist's greatest potential for discovery is during their thirties"

If instead you measure productivity in number of articles published, this study (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF00142022) claims that productivity peaks at 45-49. However that number covers a wide variety of fields, not just science, and makes no attempt to account for the quality or significance of the work.

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#19

Post by nobodyshere »

Grue3 wrote: post #14
nobodyshere wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't elaborate on the thesis, but prior to enrolling for a PhD program you indeed have to pass a philosophy exam. This is usually considered the most difficult. Passed it in summer.

I remember taking this. I had to answer something about socialism or marxism or whatever (I remember having to name the prominent socialist thinkers). This was in the 2000s, by the way. I got 3 points out of 5. I passed the other exams, math and English, perfectly, and that was not enough. I only got accepted due to personal recommendation of my scientific advisor. Since then I'm of the opinion that "Ph" is complete…

I prefer to think of "Ph" as a tradition.

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#20

Post by OJFord »

nobodyshere wrote: post #19
Grue3 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember taking this. I had to answer something about socialism or marxism or whatever (I remember having to name the prominent socialist thinkers). This was in the 2000s, by the way. I got 3 points out of 5. I passed the other exams, math and English, perfectly, and that was not enough. I only got accepted due to personal recommendation of my scientific advisor. Since then I'm of the opinion that "Ph" is complete…

I prefer to think of "Ph" as a tradition.

I would love a Doctorate of Tradition. Would never expect to be hired, though.
Post reply on HN