Re:Put the “Ph” Back in PhD
by d_theorist on Tuesday November 24, 2015 @09:23AM
(#10620815)
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.
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.