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

41–50 of 79 posts

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#41

Post by rubidium »

bthallplz wrote: post #38

I find it odd that one's exposure to and encouraging of bigger-thinking is somewhat reserved until the PhD level and that, after a long while of not exposing or encouraging such, our systems had ever expected people to suddenly think big once at the PhD level. It may be more productive to have the expectation of bigger-thinking introduced earlier and let that expectation be realized more fully at the PhD level.

This 100x.

By the time you're getting your PhD, the college graduate should have read the classics, done at least 1st year level calculus, biology, physics, ethics, philosophy, and 2-4 years of a foreign language.

High school and undergraduate is the time to be broad-minded. PhD is for very focused work (with the big picture in mind).

Personally, I read the classics and learned Greek and Latin (high school), then in college took 8 courses of philosophy, 2 of Spanish, 2 in economics, 4 in business/entrepreneurship, and a smattering of other interesting things (art, music, etc...) while getting a Physics major.

Then I went and spent 6 years learning more about one thing than anyone in the world.

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#42

Post by theyblinked »

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…

Thinking isn't about jobs. It is about life.

Perverse incentives is a great point.

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#43

Post by jmmcd »

rquantz wrote: post #32
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 for all these PhDs. Yeah, man, jobs! It's all about jobs! Jobs jobs jobs! Steve Jobs! Jobs jobs! How about this? The world needs big thinkers in ways other than their capacity as economic actors. Einstein worked at a patent office. The work he did there (for the patent office) was not his primary contribution to the world at…

Great! Meanwhile his PhD was not particularly "big thinking". So in Einstein's case I think we're both happy?

As for jobs jobs, I think you missed the point. If we lie to PhD candidates about career prospects and train them in things that have a negative effect on their careers, then the best people won't undertake research.

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#44

Post by jamesrcole »

lmm wrote: post #40
roymurdock wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a popular paradigm shift theory that posits that we tend to adopt frameworks that explain the world, then work incrementally within those frameworks until they cease to make as much sense/have as much explanatory power as they once did. Then someone (Newton, Darwin, Einstein) comes along and assembles a new framework based on new observations/theories that do a better job of explaining things. Eg the switch f…

The switch to relativity seemed pretty incremental to me. Einstein's special relativity work builds hugely on that of Lorentz published one year before.

Could Einstein have justified his course of research as an attempt to incrementally innovate on some existing work?

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#45

Post by d_theorist »

I think this article mixes together and perhaps confuses a few different things.

Stated problems:

- scientists are not equipped by their training to be able to tackle "big" challenges such as meteorites and pandemics.

- "hyper-competitiveness" for grants

- extreme specialisation means that people can't communicate.

And the solution is to learn about:

1. epistemology 2. quantitative skills 3. ethics

I certainly don't disagree with the value of learning about these things. But while epistemology and quantitative skills might help make the scientific process more rigorous, I don't see that it will change competitiveness or the inability to tackle big challenges or deter specialisation.

And while ethics is always a valuable thing to think about, I don't think it helps scientific rigor or any of the author's stated problems.

Overall I found the piece a bit muddled.

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#46

Post by lmm »

jamesrcole wrote: post #44
lmm wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The switch to relativity seemed pretty incremental to me. Einstein's special relativity work builds hugely on that of Lorentz published one year before.

Could Einstein have justified his course of research as an attempt to incrementally innovate on some existing work?

Sure. "I'm trying to figure out a more consistent way of applying the Lorentz contraction" or something on those lines.

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#47

Post by cbd1984 »

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.

> Philosophy (asking questions) and science (testing questions) are depending on each other.

Only in the instances where philosophy asks questions science can test.

Questions like "What is The Good?" and "Is it morally right to do this thing?" are not those kinds of questions.

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#48

Post by jmmcd »

jamesrcole wrote: post #23
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?

Diverting resources sounds good, but obviously should come first.

The research itself could and should have value. But a PhD must go all the way to the bottom, in terms of detail. It's not a pop science book or a funding programme, which can delegate the details to someone else. Therefore, asking the PhD student to be a big thinker as well as taking care of the experimental details is just raising the bar -- it's not changing the focus, it's raising the bar. Fewer people will be able to start PhDs and fewer will be able to complete them. The article doesn't suggest that this has been recognised.

Instead, I suggest that a PhD is not a great vehicle for "big thinking", and instead serves as a training-ground for planning, executing and describing ordinary research. Maybe the big thinking should be done -- as it is currently -- by people who have already demonstrated that they can do all that very well.

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#49

Post by mannykannot »

roymurdock wrote: post #34
lmm wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not at all clear to me. Examples?

There's a popular paradigm shift theory that posits that we tend to adopt frameworks that explain the world, then work incrementally within those frameworks until they cease to make as much sense/have as much explanatory power as they once did. Then someone (Newton, Darwin, Einstein) comes along and assembles a new framework based on new observations/theories that do a better job of explaining things. Eg the switch f…

There is an important truth here, but be aware that the popular history of science and technology over-emphasizes the 'lone genius' narrative (it is the 'lone' part that is exaggerated.)

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#50

Post by gkop »

d_theorist wrote: post #45

I think this article mixes together and perhaps confuses a few different things. Stated problems: - scientists are not equipped by their training to be able to tackle "big" challenges such as meteorites and pandemics. - "hyper-competitiveness" for grants - extreme specialisation means that people can't communicate. And the solution is to learn about: 1. epistemology 2. quantitative skills 3. ethics I certainly don't…

Quite muddled.
Post reply on HN