4 ms·

> If you think what I'm proposing is three lectures on philosophy of science than either you have zero idea how a PhD program works or you're arguing in bad fai

> If you think what I'm proposing is three lectures on philosophy of science than either you have zero idea how a PhD program works or you're arguing in bad faith. Talking about three lectures was meant as a question of what you actually propose (you might say that's bad faith). However, I believe you will find many people who you can convince that this is an important problem and they will suggest the "lecture approach" in full seriousness. That's also what I would expect from administrators who can actually implement some change in response to the problem. You still haven't said what measures you would actually endorse. I will try to guess a second time: Do you want to make each PhD student design their own experiment, perhaps with individual hands-off supervision to teach methodology? Either these experiments will be "toy experiments" to teach them methodology, or they would have to make a real contribution to science, in which case you would have to massively increase research budgets (or massively reduce numbers of PhD students) and add a LOT of non-PhD student researchers who do all the work for your newly made PhD-PI. In the latter case, these experiments might not actually deliver on their promise of generating much knowledge and, I believe, would prove an investment in the PhD's education at the cost of less scientific output. You will not convince administrators making economic decisions to implement either of these, even if they agree with you about the urgency of the problem. I think it's quite instructive to think about why this is so. Which brings me back to my main claim: the important problem in modern science is the incentive structure, not the lack of scientific methodology knowledge in PhD students.

Loquebantur 4y ago
You are right about the incentive structure being a main problem in science. But at the heart of the reasons why this structure is the way it is, you find people's utter lack of knowledge about how science does and should work in the first place. Remarably, nearly all the commenters here betray this very lack of knowledge by talking about it as "philosophy". As if it was some practically irrelevant jibberjabber. Science does not work by magic though, with people going through some motions of an occult ritual. It's an algorithm, implemented insanely badly currently.
- staunton 4y ago
  > at the heart of the reasons why this structure is the way it is, you find people's utter lack of knowledge about how science does and should work I don't think people's lack of understanding scientific methods is the main factor shaping the incentive structure, though it's very interesting how big a role it plays and I would love to hear more detailed arguments. In order to change the system, there must be enough alignment on what the actual goals are and what incentives might benefit them, ways to effectively organize around it, and ways to actually enforce the new incentives. (Perhaps even more things...) I think there are big hurdles on each of the above. First, concerning alignment on the goal, many people don't agree that faster scientific progress is actually good. You might argue that trying to teach people epistemology might change that. I neither think it would nor that it should, but one could argue about it a lot. "Indoctrinating" people starting at a young age that "science and knowledge = good" as a moral value might work (it is being done and I mostly endorse that) but that's different from teaching the scientific method. The really important important factor here is, of course, that many individuals and organizations benefit from the current system and don't want to change it. Concerning organization, political intersts and competition hinder it somewhat, but co-operation between scientists is quite high and increasing. Hopefully that trend will continue and not sucumb to geopolitical pressures. Concerning enforcing better incentives, that's very hard. For example, we can't objectively and reliably evaluate someone's scientific contributions. Any metric you set up is going to be gamed, etc. I think the incentives have improved over the (very short) history of collaborative science and the trend looks positive. Take for example the trend towards open access publication and growing awareness of many issues (replication crisis, etc.). Generally, I would say that understanding how science (the system) works and how it should work (or would, given certain changes) is very hard. Similarly, I also think really deep understanding how science (the process) should work is also hard and applying that knowledge in practice is much harder still. At some point you get diminishing returns for the efforts of teaching it. You still haven't proposed how you would promote this knowledge. I can't think of anything that seems likely to do much good but would love to hear about it. > Remarably, nearly all the commenters here betray this very lack of knowledge by talking about it as "philosophy" I believe epistemology and philosophy of science are philosophy. I also believe that having and improving these things is very useful and one cannot overstate their role in getting science where it is now. This is in my mind perfectly consistent with there not being a great need (way?) to teach more of it to students. Perhaps an explanation of how you would teach it would make me realize we haven't been talking about quite the same thing?
caddemon 4y ago
Most decisions made about the structure of PhD training are not made by random administrators like undergrad. The head of a program will be a faculty member in that department actively doing research and advising students, usually a faculty member that has been very successful in their research output (at least by official metrics). The decisions on how to structure first year curriculum, what to require for graduation, etc. are all made by PIs in that department. Of course you are 100% right that those PIs are short term incentivized to keep the cheap labor coming. I think there's a decent chance that this utterly backfires on them in the next few decades, but I guess we will see. It has already started to backfire as far as obtaining postdocs goes. Anyway, a small scale example of a better academic requirement IMO that would definitely be implementable by those making program decisions (because it already has at UCSD neurobio, perhaps elsewhere) is to change qualifying exams. In engineering programs I know quals involve grad level course work exams too so they're already a big time commitment, but in many bio programs it is simply a project proposal presentation and you get asked some questions on the background lit. Because the project proposal is just a project you are planning to do in your lab for your PhD, it is not uncommon for it to be pre-scaffolded by the PI, not requiring original thought. At UCSD they require that you write your quals proposal/presentation on a different neurobio topic entirely from anything to do with your chosen lab. This makes it far more likely that students will put together an in depth scientific proposal themselves before embarking on executing what is often someone else's. Of course their proposal does not get implemented, it is just evaluated and given feedback by a committee of established faculty members. However what I was getting at on a bigger level is that not all PhDs need specialized meta science skills, but some do. It doesn't have to happen overnight, but I'd like to see the process started by having some sort of branching in PhD requirements, perhaps like the quals change I described along with differing year 1 curriculums being optional. This shouldn't require many resources because at the graduate level it is completely fair game to stick some students in a room and give them some suggested references and a problem, and check back a month later. The important part is having not only the clear encouragement but also the protected time. Oh and I think more opportunities to work with fellow students on meaningful projects is sorely needed too. PhD students from different labs mostly only help each other on a very surface level, it is rare to see students work together across labs in a way that each would be contributing authors on the other's paper. This has the opportunity to still be productive from a traditional viewpoint but also to naturally produce more thinking about a range of science. Anyway, at a minimum I think professors can stop telling PhD students that e.g. wanting to attend a meta science reading group is a waste of time. Having that as a component of PhD education need not be compulsory or even expected, but for it to be culturally frowned upon is bizarre to me (though the selfish reasoning behind the attitude is obvious). So the incentive structures part is again true, but incentive structures aren't going to change without an attitude shift and a willingness to diversify intellectually. And it kind of is chicken/egg - the incentive structures created a bad educational environment for some time now, and some of those people are already early career profs. They're in an even worse position to be trying to fix things because they're more ignorant of the fundamental problems to begin with. Seriously there are bad actors but there are also people that are just remarkably unaware of how to be remotely statistically rigorous for example. Either that or they are really good actors who are willing to look dumb in front of certain peers to further their long term goals, but academics don't strike me as the type to be content with playing dumb (if it's being perceived by others in any event). Regardless, I'd be happy to start from a place of changing incentive structures if that were possible, and work from there. But at the end of the day I think this is an important factor for the incentive structures to consider. Bad training systems can create a real telephone game effect after a few generations.

Loquebantur 4y ago

You are right about the incentive structure being a main problem in science. But at the heart of the reasons why this structure is the way it is, you find people's utter lack of knowledge about how science does and should work in the first place. Remarably, nearly all the commenters here betray this very lack of knowledge by talking about it as "philosophy". As if it was some practically irrelevant jibberjabber. Science does not work by magic though, with people going through some motions of an occult ritual. It's an algorithm, implemented insanely badly currently.

staunton 4y ago
> at the heart of the reasons why this structure is the way it is, you find people's utter lack of knowledge about how science does and should work I don't think people's lack of understanding scientific methods is the main factor shaping the incentive structure, though it's very interesting how big a role it plays and I would love to hear more detailed arguments. In order to change the system, there must be enough alignment on what the actual goals are and what incentives might benefit them, ways to effectively organize around it, and ways to actually enforce the new incentives. (Perhaps even more things...) I think there are big hurdles on each of the above. First, concerning alignment on the goal, many people don't agree that faster scientific progress is actually good. You might argue that trying to teach people epistemology might change that. I neither think it would nor that it should, but one could argue about it a lot. "Indoctrinating" people starting at a young age that "science and knowledge = good" as a moral value might work (it is being done and I mostly endorse that) but that's different from teaching the scientific method. The really important important factor here is, of course, that many individuals and organizations benefit from the current system and don't want to change it. Concerning organization, political intersts and competition hinder it somewhat, but co-operation between scientists is quite high and increasing. Hopefully that trend will continue and not sucumb to geopolitical pressures. Concerning enforcing better incentives, that's very hard. For example, we can't objectively and reliably evaluate someone's scientific contributions. Any metric you set up is going to be gamed, etc. I think the incentives have improved over the (very short) history of collaborative science and the trend looks positive. Take for example the trend towards open access publication and growing awareness of many issues (replication crisis, etc.). Generally, I would say that understanding how science (the system) works and how it should work (or would, given certain changes) is very hard. Similarly, I also think really deep understanding how science (the process) should work is also hard and applying that knowledge in practice is much harder still. At some point you get diminishing returns for the efforts of teaching it. You still haven't proposed how you would promote this knowledge. I can't think of anything that seems likely to do much good but would love to hear about it. > Remarably, nearly all the commenters here betray this very lack of knowledge by talking about it as "philosophy" I believe epistemology and philosophy of science are philosophy. I also believe that having and improving these things is very useful and one cannot overstate their role in getting science where it is now. This is in my mind perfectly consistent with there not being a great need (way?) to teach more of it to students. Perhaps an explanation of how you would teach it would make me realize we haven't been talking about quite the same thing?

caddemon 4y ago

Most decisions made about the structure of PhD training are not made by random administrators like undergrad. The head of a program will be a faculty member in that department actively doing research and advising students, usually a faculty member that has been very successful in their research output (at least by official metrics). The decisions on how to structure first year curriculum, what to require for graduation, etc. are all made by PIs in that department. Of course you are 100% right that those PIs are short term incentivized to keep the cheap labor coming. I think there's a decent chance that this utterly backfires on them in the next few decades, but I guess we will see. It has already started to backfire as far as obtaining postdocs goes. Anyway, a small scale example of a better academic requirement IMO that would definitely be implementable by those making program decisions (because it already has at UCSD neurobio, perhaps elsewhere) is to change qualifying exams. In engineering programs I know quals involve grad level course work exams too so they're already a big time commitment, but in many bio programs it is simply a project proposal presentation and you get asked some questions on the background lit. Because the project proposal is just a project you are planning to do in your lab for your PhD, it is not uncommon for it to be pre-scaffolded by the PI, not requiring original thought. At UCSD they require that you write your quals proposal/presentation on a different neurobio topic entirely from anything to do with your chosen lab. This makes it far more likely that students will put together an in depth scientific proposal themselves before embarking on executing what is often someone else's. Of course their proposal does not get implemented, it is just evaluated and given feedback by a committee of established faculty members. However what I was getting at on a bigger level is that not all PhDs need specialized meta science skills, but some do. It doesn't have to happen overnight, but I'd like to see the process started by having some sort of branching in PhD requirements, perhaps like the quals change I described along with differing year 1 curriculums being optional. This shouldn't require many resources because at the graduate level it is completely fair game to stick some students in a room and give them some suggested references and a problem, and check back a month later. The important part is having not only the clear encouragement but also the protected time. Oh and I think more opportunities to work with fellow students on meaningful projects is sorely needed too. PhD students from different labs mostly only help each other on a very surface level, it is rare to see students work together across labs in a way that each would be contributing authors on the other's paper. This has the opportunity to still be productive from a traditional viewpoint but also to naturally produce more thinking about a range of science. Anyway, at a minimum I think professors can stop telling PhD students that e.g. wanting to attend a meta science reading group is a waste of time. Having that as a component of PhD education need not be compulsory or even expected, but for it to be culturally frowned upon is bizarre to me (though the selfish reasoning behind the attitude is obvious). So the incentive structures part is again true, but incentive structures aren't going to change without an attitude shift and a willingness to diversify intellectually. And it kind of is chicken/egg - the incentive structures created a bad educational environment for some time now, and some of those people are already early career profs. They're in an even worse position to be trying to fix things because they're more ignorant of the fundamental problems to begin with. Seriously there are bad actors but there are also people that are just remarkably unaware of how to be remotely statistically rigorous for example. Either that or they are really good actors who are willing to look dumb in front of certain peers to further their long term goals, but academics don't strike me as the type to be content with playing dumb (if it's being perceived by others in any event). Regardless, I'd be happy to start from a place of changing incentive structures if that were possible, and work from there. But at the end of the day I think this is an important factor for the incentive structures to consider. Bad training systems can create a real telephone game effect after a few generations.