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

71–79 of 79 posts

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#71

Post by vacri »

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…

Do the seated philosophers in your suggestion all have long, white beards?

This is the problem that philosophy has, and it's evident in PG's essay, too: "philosophy is old dead Greek dudes". Philosophy is much broader than that, and philosophers are not distinct entities from scientists. Philosophy and science are intertwined; knowing how to ask and answer valid questions are core functions of the fields.

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#72

Post by jamesrcole »

sampo wrote: post #63
jamesrcole wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What chances would a person claiming that have had for getting funding? I guess what I'm trying to say is that the incentives are strongly biased to what can be easily seen as a increment on what has been done before, and that this is biased against work that may draw on what has been done before but is presenting a fairly different view to what is currently accepted. Could Darwin have presented his view as an increm…

> What chances would a person claiming that have had for getting funding? Einstein didn't get funding, i.e. an academic position. He did his initial groundbreaking work while having a day job in a patent office. He published his four groundbreaking papers in 1905 and was offered a lecturer position only on 1908.

I'm aware of that, the question was about the sorts of research that are likely to recieve funding.

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#73

Post by vacri »

cbd1984 wrote: post #47
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.

> 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.

Philosophy also discusses things like how we consider a answer to be robust; stuff we now consider pretty ingrained. It's not all religiose has-no-answer pondering.

It's just that most of the 'ingrained' stuff has been settled now, and people are more interested in writing about new, unanchored stuff. The same is true of science - few professional researchers bother retreading settled ground. How often do you see an article by modern professional scientists that examine the basics of the electrical resistivity of copper?

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#74

Post by mattmanser »

vacri wrote: post #71
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…

Do the seated philosophers in your suggestion all have long, white beards? This is the problem that philosophy has, and it's evident in PG's essay, too: "philosophy is old dead Greek dudes". Philosophy is much broader than that, and philosophers are not distinct entities from scientists. Philosophy and science are intertwined; knowing how to ask and answer valid questions are core functions of the fields.

Both pg and I have studied philosophy, not that I'm comparing myself to him, but I am sure we are both well versed in ancient and modern philosophy, him 30 years ago and me 15 years ago. Probably both had more exposure than you to all the different philosophers, unless you also did Philosophy at uni?

So, no, we're not just talking about the old white bearded guys from Greece.

For me, reading that essay crystallized what had been nagging me about philosophy when I studied it, all the different forms felt the same, the arguments sounded the same but I couldn't vocalise why.

As soon as I read that essay it was obvious.

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#75

Post by mattmanser »

foldr wrote: post #35
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…

>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. Have you read any present day philosophy? That's at best a description of some of the worst tendencies of analytic philosophy, which peaked in the 40-50s. (Many philosophers these days identify as "analytic" in the bro…

Yes, lots of it. Studied Philosophy at uni.

Had a quick google and a lot of the people I read at uni are still listed as great present day philosophers, Derek Parfitt, David Chalmers, Thomas Nagel, Saul Kripke, Daniel Dennett.

Some of those books still sit on my shelf. I remember Reasons and Persons being very good.

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#76

Post by foldr »

mattmanser wrote: post #75
foldr wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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. Have you read any present day philosophy? That's at best a description of some of the worst tendencies of analytic philosophy, which peaked in the 40-50s. (Many philosophers these days identify as "analytic" in the bro…

Yes, lots of it. Studied Philosophy at uni. Had a quick google and a lot of the people I read at uni are still listed as great present day philosophers, Derek Parfitt, David Chalmers, Thomas Nagel, Saul Kripke, Daniel Dennett. Some of those books still sit on my shelf. I remember Reasons and Persons being very good.

But there's no sense in which, say, Chalmers and Nagel are just playing around with word meanings. Their philosophical style is nothing like that. I'm sorry, it's just hard to believe that you've ever studied philosophy if PG's essay speaks to you at all. There are some real clangers in there. For example:

>Most philosophical debates are not merely afflicted by but driven by confusions over words. Do we have free will? Depends what you mean by "free."

Well, yes, which is why philosophers have been trying to clarify the various possible senses of 'free' and to determine whether or not we have free will in each of these various senses. Either we ignore the question, or we try to clarify it and answer it in one of it's clarified forms. And indeed, philosophers have been doing the latter, quite productively, for thousands of years. If there's now a third option, PG doesn't bother telling us what it is.

>Meanwhile, sensing a vacuum in the metaphysical speculation department, the people who used to do literary criticism have been edging Kantward, under new names like "literary theory," "critical theory," and when they're feeling ambitious, plain "theory."

PG is apparently unaware of the resurgence of metaphysics in the past few decades. You could hardly describe EJ Lowe as a literary critic.

> it would be misleading to say the field is 2500 years old, because for most of that time the leading practitioners weren't doing much more than writing commentaries on Plato or Aristotle while watching over their shoulders for the next invading army.

Again, total ignorance of the history of philosophy.

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#77

Post by mattmanser »

foldr wrote: post #76
mattmanser wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, lots of it. Studied Philosophy at uni. Had a quick google and a lot of the people I read at uni are still listed as great present day philosophers, Derek Parfitt, David Chalmers, Thomas Nagel, Saul Kripke, Daniel Dennett. Some of those books still sit on my shelf. I remember Reasons and Persons being very good.

But there's no sense in which, say, Chalmers and Nagel are just playing around with word meanings. Their philosophical style is nothing like that. I'm sorry, it's just hard to believe that you've ever studied philosophy if PG's essay speaks to you at all. There are some real clangers in there. For example: >Most philosophical debates are not merely afflicted by but driven by confusions over words. Do we have free wil…

In all seriousness, I studied philosophy. pg studied philosophy. You don't read a few hundred philosophy books and essays and not get some understanding of the history of philosophy. My course was pretty much structured as a progression of ancient to modern over the 3 years.

First you accused me, with no proof, of not having read modern philosophy. I disabused you of that view.

Now you are calling us 'unaware' and ignorant because you don't agree with this viewpoint.

You've fallen to the level of name calling.

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#78

Post by Keyframe »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #67
Keyframe wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OP asked wikipedia in the wrong place. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_science#History As one can remember from high school, natural science fields spawned from natural philosophy from 17th through 19th century. Culminating maybe with psychology in the early 20th century (end of 19th). No mystery there.

I was perfectly aware of this, and checked https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_philosophy . The link and quote I provided are much more directly relevant. Ph.D.s aren't just for natural science; they're for everything that isn't covered by a J.D. or an M.D. Funny coincidence, that, given the historical factoid "All fields other than theology, law, and medicine were traditionally known as philosophy". Ph.D.s in lite…

Problem, probably, arises in dual definition of philosophy. Google says (define: philosophy):

(this is the classic meaning) 1. the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline.

2. a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behaviour.

Re: Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

#79

Post by foldr »

mattmanser wrote: post #77
foldr wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there's no sense in which, say, Chalmers and Nagel are just playing around with word meanings. Their philosophical style is nothing like that. I'm sorry, it's just hard to believe that you've ever studied philosophy if PG's essay speaks to you at all. There are some real clangers in there. For example: >Most philosophical debates are not merely afflicted by but driven by confusions over words. Do we have free wil…

In all seriousness, I studied philosophy. pg studied philosophy. You don't read a few hundred philosophy books and essays and not get some understanding of the history of philosophy. My course was pretty much structured as a progression of ancient to modern over the 3 years. First you accused me, with no proof, of not having read modern philosophy. I disabused you of that view. Now you are calling us 'unaware' and ig…

I'm not sure why you're choosing to ignore the majority of what I wrote and complain about name calling. In summary: few of the philosophers you mention could be accused of merely playing around with word meanings; most of what PG says about philosophy makes no sense or is false. More specifics in my previous comment.
Post reply on HN