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

21–30 of 79 posts

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#21

Post by lmm »

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…

> There's a solid trend in academia that is "publish early, publish fast".

With an increasing number of researchers isn't that a great thing? If you publish your little incremental innovations then everyone can build on them. If you try to build your giant all-encompassing framework before you publish any of it, you'll have to do it all yourself (if it even amounts to anything).

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#22

Post by mattmanser »

ThomPete wrote: post #17
mattmanser wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

in the traditional natural sciences that's not been true for a few centuries now. Theoretical physicists aren't classified as philosophers for example, which fits your 'asking' criteria. Theoretical scientists ask, experimental test.

It was still kind of true in the social sciences like psychology and sociology in the last century, but they've become more 'real', more rigorous and less influenced by philosophers, the questions in those fields today are now asked by people who wouldn't identify themselves as philosophers but as scientists.

I would say that change has really crystallized in the last 20 years, when I was in uni psychology and sociology were still considered a bit of a joke, kind of not real science and the philosophy courses I did about them still tried to pretend to be relevant in the discussion. Now I think we're starting to see the rigor really kick in, which is demonstrated in the recent reproducibility saga.

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#23

Post by jamesrcole »

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…

>> We need big thinkers

> We need some, but there aren't anywhere near enough big-thinking jobs

Ok. Perhaps we also need jobs for them?

[EDIT: what I mean is, perhaps it is in society's interest to divert some resources to creating more jobs for such people?]

And perhaps the research itself, that these big thinkers do for their PhDs, has important value for society?

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#24

Post by jamesrcole »

lmm wrote: post #21
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…

> There's a solid trend in academia that is "publish early, publish fast". With an increasing number of researchers isn't that a great thing? If you publish your little incremental innovations then everyone can build on them. If you try to build your giant all-encompassing framework before you publish any of it, you'll have to do it all yourself (if it even amounts to anything).

You're assuming that all important innovations are incremental. Historically that is clearly not the case.

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#25

Post by jamesrcole »

Fede_V wrote: post #8
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…

Yeah, pretty much exactly this. In the abstract, I fully support teaching science PhDs more about Quine, Russell, Popper, Carnap - they are all great thinkers who had very intelligent ideas. In practice, PhDs at top tier institutions are far too concerned with the day to day rat race that the history of ideas is not likely to be a serious priority. As long as the competition for stable positions will remain so fierce…

> In practice, ...

You're arguing that what happens to be the case now is how it should be.

Do you think this is the best way for it to be, and if so, why?

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#26

Post by ThomPete »

mattmanser wrote: post #22
ThomPete wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

in the traditional natural sciences that's not been true for a few centuries now. Theoretical physicists aren't classified as philosophers for example, which fits your 'asking' criteria. Theoretical scientists ask, experimental test. It was still kind of true in the social sciences like psychology and sociology in the last century, but they've become more 'real', more rigorous and less influenced by philosophers, the…

It doesn't matter what they are classified as what matters is what they do. It's the difference between the disciplin of philosophy and the act of philosophizing. Without philosophizing there wouldn't be any big bang theory, or string theory etc.

Philosophy is a slippery slope the same way that improvising in music is. It's value is not in the results but in the process.

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#27

Post by jamesrcole »

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…

I'm a big fan of science, and I think a lot of philosophy is dubious, but what you're saying doesn't sound right to me.

Didn't Francis Bacon have a lot to do with the initial codification of the ideas behind the practice of science?

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#28

Post by lmm »

jamesrcole wrote: post #24
lmm wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's a solid trend in academia that is "publish early, publish fast". With an increasing number of researchers isn't that a great thing? If you publish your little incremental innovations then everyone can build on them. If you try to build your giant all-encompassing framework before you publish any of it, you'll have to do it all yourself (if it even amounts to anything).

You're assuming that all important innovations are incremental. Historically that is clearly not the case.

Not at all clear to me. Examples?

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#29

Post by thefastlane »

The Senior Executive Provost of Whatever sees your department as nothing but a cost center. Literally. I agree completely with the author, but I'll add one more thing: we need big ideas to overcome the market-fundamentalist ideology that drives university administrations today.

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#30

Post by kushti »

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?

I did study General Philosophy / Philosophy of Science / Philosophy of Informatics during PhD fellowship. Last two courses were awesome, each course lasted for half an year. No special section in thesis though.
Post reply on HN