4 ms·

I know half a dozen or so PhD's in microbiology at one of the leading research institutions. They don't understand the philosophy of science beyond what I was t

by krona 6y ago

I know half a dozen or so PhD's in microbiology at one of the leading research institutions. They don't understand the philosophy of science beyond what I was taught aged 10-11. I don't think the basics of Karl Popper and Kuhn are beyond the grasp of a secondary school student, considering their importance not just in science but in the world we now live in.

ta988 6y ago
Thats because many PhD are just glorified technicians (same technicians we purged out of our labs doing one of the worst mistake of the last decades I believe). So we get all those PhD learning 3d printing, microcontrollers, programming for creating new devices, tools and whatever else. Where for technicians it would have been a much shorter turnaround. Of course the individuals learn new (basic level) skills. But it also impedes discovery and leaves a whole category of people out of the door. In PhD I was once told I couldn't put the technician on the authors list because he was paid to do his job...
- ravel-bar-foo 6y ago
  The line between scientific and non-scientific contributions can be fuzzy. One would not put the supplier of a chemical in the authors list ... unless the synthesis and distribution was done as part of a collaboration and it is the compound which makes the experiment possible. But then, there is a lot of leeway in "collaboration"
  - ta988 6y ago
    Authorship is a constant battle. You don't put the supplier no, but the technician that ran half of the experiments and also improved them? Of course they should be.
konjin 6y ago
I got half way through a physics phd and the only time anyone quoted Khun was as what happens when you read science books without understanding mathematics.
watwut 6y ago
Philosophy of science and doing science are two much different things.
mncharity 6y ago
Years back, I went to a couple-of-day conference/seminar that was microbiology outreach to humanities and public. There were some in the audience who really wanted to find a Kuhnian narrative for the transformational progress in microbiology over the last few decades, and were very unhappy with an answer of no, sorry, driver was technology dropping costs by many orders of magnitude, transformationally changing the experiments and questions that were affordable to pursue. So perhaps microbiology is not the best context for suggesting Kuhn as useful?

by krona 6y ago

ta988 6y ago

Thats because many PhD are just glorified technicians (same technicians we purged out of our labs doing one of the worst mistake of the last decades I believe). So we get all those PhD learning 3d printing, microcontrollers, programming for creating new devices, tools and whatever else. Where for technicians it would have been a much shorter turnaround. Of course the individuals learn new (basic level) skills. But it also impedes discovery and leaves a whole category of people out of the door. In PhD I was once told I couldn't put the technician on the authors list because he was paid to do his job...

ravel-bar-foo 6y ago
The line between scientific and non-scientific contributions can be fuzzy. One would not put the supplier of a chemical in the authors list ... unless the synthesis and distribution was done as part of a collaboration and it is the compound which makes the experiment possible. But then, there is a lot of leeway in "collaboration"
- ta988 6y ago
  Authorship is a constant battle. You don't put the supplier no, but the technician that ran half of the experiments and also improved them? Of course they should be.

konjin 6y ago

I got half way through a physics phd and the only time anyone quoted Khun was as what happens when you read science books without understanding mathematics.

watwut 6y ago

Philosophy of science and doing science are two much different things.

mncharity 6y ago

Years back, I went to a couple-of-day conference/seminar that was microbiology outreach to humanities and public. There were some in the audience who really wanted to find a Kuhnian narrative for the transformational progress in microbiology over the last few decades, and were very unhappy with an answer of no, sorry, driver was technology dropping costs by many orders of magnitude, transformationally changing the experiments and questions that were affordable to pursue. So perhaps microbiology is not the best context for suggesting Kuhn as useful?