Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
c_prompt

Put the “Ph” Back in PhD

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

http://magazine.jhsph.edu/2015/summer/forum/rethinking-put-the-ph-back-in-phd/index.html

 

Conceptually, I agree with his view that without a better understanding and appreciation for philosophy, humanity is limited by the progress science makes. But if I'm understanding his reasoning, he wants more philosophy so that scientists can become well-rounded generalists, reduce competitiveness, and better communicate to voters and politicians. These might be valuable benefits but, to me, humanity could benefit most if scientists had a much better understanding of rational ethics. IMO, universities are churning out too many Dr. Robert Stadlers. A rational understanding of ethics is needed to reduce the researching and funding of the plethora of Project X-type efforts. Not to mention that if scientists ever truly learned rational ethics, they'd no longer ask for government grants as they'd know it's wrong to take stolen money.

Edited by c_prompt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoyed the article and your critique.  In reading the article I noted that the purpose of the author's desire to expand postgraduate science knowledge to include Ph. (something I support) was to accomplish goals founded in altruism and collectivism.  Not to enhance the lives of all humans, but, specifically, to feed the malnourished and develop ideas to solve the problems humans have created in their folly.  You cannot find a gold nugget while digging in a lead mine.

 

I got a BA and an MS in biology without being required to take any course in philosophy or rhetoric - the two philosophy courses I took by choice in grad school were worthless.  Requiring grad student to take the philosophy courses available in universities today would be only slightly better (or maybe worse) that taking nothing at all.

 

I recall the link a forum member posted recently, from a philosophy prof who published a paper that introduced the premise that "reason" was a white-racist concept introduced to keep non-whites in their place. The author offered no argument, only statistics exposing current injustice - as if the apparent injustice supported his basic premise.   

 

There is a proposition in Objectivism that creates a basis in history for all these contradictions.  Once you deny the primacy of existence, if you then accept the primacy of consciousness, then any imagination of consciousness gains a validity it does not possess.  "Hey, if I can think it, it may not be true, but it might be." SO we must accept for study any silly idea, and that has become the foundation of philosophy education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×