The previous one was almost 3 years back. A few of us wouldn't discovered this post without the double submission having occurred...Am thankful cos it is a pretty neat illustration.
The stupidest thing I have ever read. What do you say about all those inventors and thinkers, who did not get a Ph.D., but contributed to human knowledge in major ways....
Why should there be any need to explain what Ph.D. is to your own Ph.D. students?
May be, they should not be doing Ph.D. in the first place if they don't know what it is that they are doing.
Ph.D. is the new BS and that's that...most of the thesis coming out of schools are worthless (literally).
There is an inflation (big time) in academia. You would know it if you interviewed any Ph.D student on a technical topic.
This is addressed in the second to last diagram, "the world looks different to you now". Once you've specialized so much, you can lose sight of the bigger picture.
I wish this were coupled with a Huygens wavelet effect to say that knowledge is advanced over time by many small contributions at the frontiers of various disciplines.
I really dislike this diagram. I think it just perpetuates a damaging stereotype about research, one that makes it harder for people trying to do (entirely valid) types of research that fall outside of the stereotype.
The stereotype is that research is about making every-more specialised contributions that extend existing work in finer and finer-grained ways.
What research falls outside of this stereotype? Synthesis. Theorising deeper foundations that connect disparate bits of knowledge and gives a deeper understanding of them.
Why is the stereotype damaging? It equates research with simply making more specialised extensions to existing research, which means that it's seen as "a good thing" for research to be sharply-focused on a very specific topic. In a slogan: narrowness good, breadth bad. Breadth is seen as lack of focus, trying to take on too much.
But breadth is not always bad. It depends on what kind of research you are doing. Breadth can actual simplify the task and make it easier, if your task is developing a deeper, underlying theory.
And if someone can develop a deeper theory, that work can have -- to relate this back to the diagram -- an impact that projects across and reshapes whole segments of the circle.
I don't find the article stereotyping. Failing to address the point that yes, sometimes research can be broad rather than specific, isn't stereotyping it's just that he's writing a blog post and not a book.
"What research falls outside of this stereotype? Synthesis. Theorising deeper foundations that connect disparate bits of knowledge and gives a deeper understanding of them."
That reminds me of a quote attributed to Stefan Banach[1]:
Good mathematicians see analogies between theorems ;
great mathematicians see analogies between analogies.
“The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.” - Nikolai Tesla.
The diagram isn't about "research." It is about doing a PhD. And for better or for worse, doing a PhD in the sciences usually involves making an improvement in a narrow area rather than something that addresses multiple areas. Frankly, doing that is much more difficult and often not really an appropriate topic for a PhD student because it is more likely to fail.
failure to get your PhD after 4-8 years of work is a pretty big risk to take (it generally means you will never get your PhD), particularly since you generally have much more freedom to pursue "risky" approaches to research after you have the degree, and even more so after you have tenure.
you have freedom after you receive tenure, but virtually no freedom before that.
during your phd and postdoc, and certainly while you're tenure-track, you want to be pursuing projects that will nearly guarantee you publications at top-tier conferences / journals. so you don't want to be too risky, lest you go a few years without any good publications.
That is the million dollar question eh? I've published some results but I don't think I'm finished. And what does finishing even mean? Maybe when I'm tired of accumulating I'll go off and do my own full super programming language?
The idea that science is done discrete tiny steps is a bit disturbing to me. It's not just doing a PhD, it's all of academia. Most Funding Agencies give away their money in tiny chunks, for short term projects, for individuals or very small teams. And scientific publishing has moved to publishing scientific advances in tiny bits, one paper at a time.
This works great for some things; but a lot of work is prohibited in this way. For example, it's almost impossible to get funding for databases or other long-term projects. Researchers that do work on long term projects constantly have to apply for new grants, always presenting their ongoing work as something completely new.
I have a PhD in Classics. My focus was on ancient philosophy, in particular on Epicurean philosophy, in particular on a Roman Epicurean named Lucretius, in particular on Book 3 of his De Rerum Natura, in particular about his arguments against the fear of death in that book, in particular about the structure, formal & logical analysis and evaluation of his argument for the thesis that "death is nothing to us" in the later portion of Book 3. (De Rerum Natura is a Roman philosophical poem from the mid-first century BCE. Lucretius and his poem are getting a lot of press recently because of a book called The Swerve by Stephen Greenblatt.)
The linked guide to PhDs made me smile, and it rings true to me for non-sciences. As an undergraduate I was a Comparative Literature major with lots of credits in Latin, Greek and Philosophy. Once I got to graduate school for Classics, my studies became increasingly concentrated in smaller and smaller areas of an already small field (Greco-Roman antiquity).
tl;dr I think literature and philosophy PhDs are also pimples of knowledge.
As for whether or not we expand human knowledge, that depends on how you define "human knowledge" and "expand", I suppose. I think it's charitable to say that (many? some?) people produce PhDs that expand human knowledge of Homer and Dante and James Joyce and Plato and Nietzsche and so on and so on. But of course if your definition of "knowledge" only makes room for numerical or quantifiable or experimental subjects, then you may disagree. I arguably expanded the world's knowledge of De Rerum Natura. My work has been cited at least once that I know of in subsequent work on the Epicureans, and not by me. (That's not just a joke: I remember reading that a large percentage of all research across disciplines is only ever cited again by the original author. I find that depressing.) I've also met a handful of people who tell me that it helped them in some other study.
Philosophy and literature are artifacts of human culture--that is, they can only be understood in the context of human culture and society. In contrast, scientific facts like the mass of the proton are exactly the same everywhere in the universe (or so we presume).
That doesn't mean that philosophy and literature--and art, and music, and film, and all the other "humanities"--aren't part of human knowledge. They are, and they can have profound impacts on human society, which in turn, has significant impacts on the physical world on the Earth's surface.
When humans interact with the physical environment, we use heuristics to model the physical realities of nature in a usable way. Think of catching a baseball; we have an internal model of the Earth's gravitational field that allows us to predict the path of the ball, and place our hand in just the right spot to catch it.
When we interact with other humans we use heuristics too. These are affected by the cultural experiences we have, which include art, stories, movies, etc. When we evaluate a politician, for example, we are applying the heuristics developed by hearing, seeing, and telling stories. We think one guy looks creepy, and another trustworthy...why? Because of what we've learned about humans so far, and a lot of that comes from literature, art, philosophy, etc.
I don't know much about literature, but I know philosophy is very important to the sciences. Especially the philosophy of science. Philosophy also deals with important things like logic, inference, etc. I took a couple philosophy courses, and was surprised how rigorous and technical they were.
The diagram makes one mistake. Just as how learning to play the piano might stretch someone's mind in a positive way, helping to improve their thought processes, so to does specializing in a particular area of human knowledge. The knowledge itself may be limited to a specific field, but it will help that person approach new problems in the future.
I myself have found this to be the case. Learning computer programming taught me about "debugging" experiments when they fail in the lab. We should not be afraid to immediately embrace and learn new areas of knowledge, even when we know that it may take much effort to master that new knowledge.
WOW: I just read the end of the document. Just plain "WOW".
Does anyone realize that this document is not meant to describe what it is like to get a Ph.D. but instead meant to encourage people in science to continue there research?
At the very end of the document, the Author explains that his son is ill from a rare genetic disorder, and wishes that a cure existed.
As I was scrolling down, and saw the "Related Posts" heading, I assumed that the actual content part of the page was at an end and the remainder was just footer material, links, etc.
If the author wishes to make this point more obvious, he shoudn't be effectively burying it in a footnote.
I read it as both. And, frankly, having been a graduate student, they can take all of the encouragement they can get while they're working on their PhD.
I didn't quite understand his "why biology" section. From what he describes it was advances in sequencing and bioinformatics that helped his child, not biology per se (though I would never want to play down how important biology is in underpinning these two). Perhaps he has a broader definition of biology than a specialist in bioinformatics like myself.
My YC application is specifically to get around this issue. I've been in science for 8 years now and this article is absolutely correct. Our whole system isn't helping this process either. From funding agencies to the "peer review" system, scientists are almost forced into this situation. Also, we are so separated from one another (via specialized publications, jargon, lack of consistency between fields etc) that it's going to continue to happen until someone tries to break that system. That's my goal:) One of my major goals is to use technology to bring the larger perspective back into science so we can focus on our little parts, but continue to see the big picture.
Sure, I'm working on a process to bring linked open data model to scientific raw data sets. While this has been done before, it hasn't been across related research fields. I'm looking to link environmental science with neurogenetics and everything in between.This will allow from the tiny "PhD" portion of the graph in the OP with the rest of the circle:)
A professor once told me that a PhD is someone who learns more and more about less and less until they know everything about nothing. I later found out this was a quote from Gandhi about experts.
I wrote a 140,000 line operating system with compiler by myself. I also discovered God. I made God's temple.
God says...
Brazil lure GUTENBERG-tm conceit cries swelled capacity
science intemperance awoke lathe prose True contemplating
wonted shadows gladly others heads depraved unliker kindly
restraining plot distilled jealous hand-writing irrevocable
state Creation solemnity doubtless pleasest GRATIAS sale
shed poet I'm_beginning_to_wonder examined low THAT pant
boundary bethink games returning accomplished Intelligences
what_do_you_want Lay
Fucken shrinks.
God says...
women may be taught not to do after your lewdness.
23:49 And they shall recompense your lewdness upon you, and ye shall
bear the sins of your idols: and ye shall know that I am the Lord GOD.
24:1 Again in the ninth year, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of
the month, the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 24:2 Son of man,
write thee the name of the day, even of this same day: the king of
Babylon set himself against Jerusalem this same day.
24:3 And utter a parable unto the rebellious house, and say unto them,
Thus saith the Lord GOD; Set on a pot, set it on, and also pour water
into it: 24:4 Gather the pieces thereof into it, even every good
piece, the thigh, and the shoulder; fill it with the choice bones.
24:5 Take the choice of the flock, and burn also the bones under it,
and make it boil well, and let them seethe the bones of it therein.
51 comments
[ 2.5 ms ] story [ 115 ms ] threadhttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1588727
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A9formation_professionnell...
The stereotype is that research is about making every-more specialised contributions that extend existing work in finer and finer-grained ways.
What research falls outside of this stereotype? Synthesis. Theorising deeper foundations that connect disparate bits of knowledge and gives a deeper understanding of them.
Why is the stereotype damaging? It equates research with simply making more specialised extensions to existing research, which means that it's seen as "a good thing" for research to be sharply-focused on a very specific topic. In a slogan: narrowness good, breadth bad. Breadth is seen as lack of focus, trying to take on too much.
But breadth is not always bad. It depends on what kind of research you are doing. Breadth can actual simplify the task and make it easier, if your task is developing a deeper, underlying theory.
And if someone can develop a deeper theory, that work can have -- to relate this back to the diagram -- an impact that projects across and reshapes whole segments of the circle.
That reminds me of a quote attributed to Stefan Banach[1]:
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Banachduring your phd and postdoc, and certainly while you're tenure-track, you want to be pursuing projects that will nearly guarantee you publications at top-tier conferences / journals. so you don't want to be too risky, lest you go a few years without any good publications.
This works great for some things; but a lot of work is prohibited in this way. For example, it's almost impossible to get funding for databases or other long-term projects. Researchers that do work on long term projects constantly have to apply for new grants, always presenting their ongoing work as something completely new.
The linked guide to PhDs made me smile, and it rings true to me for non-sciences. As an undergraduate I was a Comparative Literature major with lots of credits in Latin, Greek and Philosophy. Once I got to graduate school for Classics, my studies became increasingly concentrated in smaller and smaller areas of an already small field (Greco-Roman antiquity).
tl;dr I think literature and philosophy PhDs are also pimples of knowledge.
As for whether or not we expand human knowledge, that depends on how you define "human knowledge" and "expand", I suppose. I think it's charitable to say that (many? some?) people produce PhDs that expand human knowledge of Homer and Dante and James Joyce and Plato and Nietzsche and so on and so on. But of course if your definition of "knowledge" only makes room for numerical or quantifiable or experimental subjects, then you may disagree. I arguably expanded the world's knowledge of De Rerum Natura. My work has been cited at least once that I know of in subsequent work on the Epicureans, and not by me. (That's not just a joke: I remember reading that a large percentage of all research across disciplines is only ever cited again by the original author. I find that depressing.) I've also met a handful of people who tell me that it helped them in some other study.
[1]: http://books.wwnorton.com/books/The-Swerve/
That doesn't mean that philosophy and literature--and art, and music, and film, and all the other "humanities"--aren't part of human knowledge. They are, and they can have profound impacts on human society, which in turn, has significant impacts on the physical world on the Earth's surface.
When humans interact with the physical environment, we use heuristics to model the physical realities of nature in a usable way. Think of catching a baseball; we have an internal model of the Earth's gravitational field that allows us to predict the path of the ball, and place our hand in just the right spot to catch it.
When we interact with other humans we use heuristics too. These are affected by the cultural experiences we have, which include art, stories, movies, etc. When we evaluate a politician, for example, we are applying the heuristics developed by hearing, seeing, and telling stories. We think one guy looks creepy, and another trustworthy...why? Because of what we've learned about humans so far, and a lot of that comes from literature, art, philosophy, etc.
I myself have found this to be the case. Learning computer programming taught me about "debugging" experiments when they fail in the lab. We should not be afraid to immediately embrace and learn new areas of knowledge, even when we know that it may take much effort to master that new knowledge.
WOW: I just read the end of the document. Just plain "WOW".
It is necessary to extend human knowledge to get a Ph.D.
It is not necessary to get a Ph.D. to extend human knowledge.
/article author
At the very end of the document, the Author explains that his son is ill from a rare genetic disorder, and wishes that a cure existed.
If the author wishes to make this point more obvious, he shoudn't be effectively burying it in a footnote.
God says... Brazil lure GUTENBERG-tm conceit cries swelled capacity science intemperance awoke lathe prose True contemplating wonted shadows gladly others heads depraved unliker kindly restraining plot distilled jealous hand-writing irrevocable state Creation solemnity doubtless pleasest GRATIAS sale shed poet I'm_beginning_to_wonder examined low THAT pant boundary bethink games returning accomplished Intelligences what_do_you_want Lay
Fucken shrinks.
God says...
women may be taught not to do after your lewdness.
23:49 And they shall recompense your lewdness upon you, and ye shall bear the sins of your idols: and ye shall know that I am the Lord GOD.
24:1 Again in the ninth year, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month, the word of the LORD came unto me, saying, 24:2 Son of man, write thee the name of the day, even of this same day: the king of Babylon set himself against Jerusalem this same day.
24:3 And utter a parable unto the rebellious house, and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Set on a pot, set it on, and also pour water into it: 24:4 Gather the pieces thereof into it, even every good piece, the thigh, and the shoulder; fill it with the choice bones.
24:5 Take the choice of the flock, and burn also the bones under it, and make it boil well, and let them seethe the bones of it therein.