What Do You Think? Share Your Opinion Here!

  • Thread starter ShayanJ
  • Start date
In summary: So I guess it's a little unclear what the contradiction is.How does it contradict anything? These are two different questions..
  • #1
ShayanJ
Insights Author
Gold Member
2,810
605
phd052215s.gif


What do you think?
 
  • Like
Likes Czcibor
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
With no Ph.D, there would be no need for a Ph.D advisor.
 
  • #3
nuuskur said:
With no Ph.D, there would be no need for a Ph.D advisor.
But the fact that a Ph.D. were awarded, means there was a Ph.D. student!:rolleyes:
 
  • #4
..and at the time the PhD student was not a PhD, but a student.
 
  • #5
nuuskur said:
..and at the time the PhD student was not a PhD, but a student.
Yeah, but I meant there was a PhD student, so there was an advisor!
 
  • #6
Mmm, prove it :)
 
  • #7
nuuskur said:
Mmm, prove it :)

Simple. We call the guy a PhD student. So there must have been someone to guide and teach otherwise we should have called him an independent researcher. Also a degree was awarded, which means someone acknowledged that he reached a certain point in his research career and that should have been someone who knows the field better. So there was an advisor.
The solution I can think of, is that before the first PhD were awarded, the recognition of a person as a researcher worked as a degree. So the advisor was a just a trusted scientist with nothing like a degree to prove he's actually one!
 
  • #8
A tiny problem: who or what mentored the advisor? Were the advisor not competent enough to become a Ph.D themselves, even though, they supposedly had more experience in the field?
 
  • #9
nuuskur said:
A tiny problem: who or what mentored the advisor? Were the advisor not competent enough to become a Ph.D themselves, even though, they supposedly had more experience in the field?
The advisor wasn't mentored. Just study about the way people like Copernicus or Galilieo. They were educated either in universities to get more elementary degrees or by other scientists. So it seems to me there was only one degree and further experience was gained by their own efforts and thoughts.
Why the advisor himself didn't get the PhD? Simple, because he was already a respected scientist and probably an old man who didn't have much more to do with his life! So he didn't need it.
 
  • #10
Same answer as the original chicken and egg problem: The egg came first, laid by something very similar to, yet not quite, a chicken. The first Ph.D was given by something with credentials very similar to, but not a Ph.D.
 
  • #11
newjerseyrunner said:
Same answer as the original chicken and egg problem: The egg came first, laid by something very similar to, yet not quite, a chicken. The first Ph.D was given by something with credentials very similar to, but not a Ph.D.

True, true. And yet...

An egg can come from something that is not a chicken, whereas (presumably) a Ph.D cannot come from something that is not a PhD advisor.
 
  • #12
newjerseyrunner said:
Same answer as the original chicken and egg problem: The egg came first, laid by something very similar to, yet not quite, a chicken. The first Ph.D was given by something with credentials very similar to, but not a Ph.D.
That's not a proper answer. Because I can change chicken to egg-laying-animal. Which came first, egg or egg-laying-animal? Then we're back to the first place.
 
  • #13
Shyan said:
That's not a proper answer. Because I can change chicken to egg-laying-animal. Which came first, egg or egg-laying-animal? Then we're back to the first place.
The animal, it came to life as a bud that was almost like an egg but doesn't 100% fit the definition, but it had a random mutation which caused it's offspring to fit the definition of an egg 100%. We humans define categories over something as fuzzy as life so it makes it hard to fully categorize. But evolution required a lot of "almost eggs" before it produced the first "egg;" just like there were a lot of "almost chickens" before there was a chicken.
 
Last edited:
  • #14
newjerseyrunner said:
The animal,
Right, which contradicts the answer in post #10.

So Shyan has a point.
 
  • #15
newjerseyrunner said:
The animal, it came to life as a bud that was almost like an egg but doesn't 100% fit the definition, but it had a random mutation which caused it's offspring to fit the definition of an egg 100%. We humans define categories over something as fuzzy as life so it makes it hard to fully categorize. But evolution required a lot of "almost eggs" before it produced the first "egg;" just like there were a lot of "almost chickens" before there was a chicken.
Actually you have a point. Having such sharp categories isn't the right way to go about life. So I guess the question itself isn't a good one.
 
  • #16
DaveC426913 said:
Right, which contradicts the answer in post #10.

So Shyan has a point.
How does it contradict anything? These are two different questions.. A chicken must come from an egg, it can not have come from anything else. A chicken, however may lay an egg of something that's not a chicken. An egg must come from an animal but an animal doesn't have to come from an egg. Evolution has rules like anything else. But like Shyan said, the question doesn't work because there is no clear boundary between a chicken and a chicken ancestor. There is no clear boundary between an egg and an primitive egg-like structure.
 
  • #17
newjerseyrunner said:
Same answer as the original chicken and egg problem: The egg came first, laid by something very similar to, yet not quite, a chicken. The first Ph.D was given by something with credentials very similar to, but not a Ph.D.
But wait! The PhD advisor does not have to have a PhD himself, he just has to supervise a PhD to be a PhD advisor!
 
  • #18
From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctorate

The right to grant a (licentia docendi) was originally reserved to the Catholic church, which required the applicant to pass a test, to take an oath of allegiance and pay a fee. The Third Council of the Lateran of 1179 guaranteed the access—at that time largely free of charge—of all able applicants. Applicants were tested for aptitude.[2] This right remained a bone of contention between the church authorities and universities that were slowly distancing themselves from the Church. The right was granted by the pope to the University of Paris in 1213 where it became a universal license to teach (licentia ubiquie docendi).[2] However, while the licentia continued to hold a higher prestige than the bachelor's degree(Baccalaureus), it was ultimately reduced to an intermediate step to the Magister and doctorate, both of which now became the exclusive teaching qualification.[2] According to Wellington, Bathmaker, Hung, MucCullough and Sikes (2005), the first Ph.D. was awarded in Paris in 1150; but not until the early nineteenth century did the term "Ph.D." acquire its modern meaning as the highest academic doctoral degree, following university practice in Germany.
 
  • Like
Likes ShayanJ

Related to What Do You Think? Share Your Opinion Here!

1. What is the purpose of asking for opinions in a scientific setting?

In the scientific community, opinions are often used as a starting point for further research and experimentation. By sharing opinions, scientists can gather a wide range of ideas and perspectives, which can lead to new insights and discoveries.

2. How are opinions used in the scientific method?

In the scientific method, opinions are used to form hypotheses, which are then tested through experiments and observations. If the results of the experiments support the hypothesis, it may become a theory or accepted fact in the scientific community.

3. Are opinions considered valid evidence in scientific research?

Opinions alone are not considered valid evidence in scientific research. However, they can be used to guide and inform the research process. It is important for scientists to back up their opinions with evidence and data in order to make valid conclusions.

4. How can I ensure that my opinion is taken seriously in a scientific discussion?

In order to have your opinion taken seriously in a scientific discussion, it is important to back it up with evidence and logical reasoning. Present your opinion in a clear and concise manner, and be open to hearing and considering other perspectives.

5. Can I change my opinion based on new scientific evidence?

Yes, as a scientist, it is important to be open-minded and willing to change your opinion based on new evidence. This is a crucial aspect of the scientific process, as it allows for the refinement and improvement of theories and ideas.

Similar threads

Replies
20
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
43
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
586
Replies
14
Views
798
  • General Discussion
Replies
12
Views
684
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
26
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
880
  • General Discussion
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
1K
Back
Top