c_prompt Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 (edited) 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 July 26, 2015 by c_prompt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacassidy2 Posted July 26, 2015 Report Share Posted July 26, 2015 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.