Who killed more in the Bible?

(Click to enlarge)

Source

Read More...

Summary only...

PhD - what's the point?

The latest issue of Nature has a few articles on the topic of PhDs.

'Reform the PhD system or close it down'
by Mark C. Taylor argues that many universities and academics essentially (if not purposefully) lie to undergraduates about their eventual career prospects in order to simply get 'free labour'. In this way, PhD students become nothing more than data generators who can be discarded and forgotten once they successfully graduate. I've seen this happen in my own career. Some academics have little interest in their students, other than what they can get out of them for their own benefit, i.e. publications. But their are others who do care. They allow the student to develop in their own time, which can take months or even years, but once that spark emerges they carefully nurture the student and encourage them to think laterally and critically about their chosen subject area.

As a side note, I am somewhat surprised that Nature invited Mark C. Taylor to write this article, given that he is a Professor of Religion in Columbia University. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with people studying religion. But I think someone from a scientific discipline would have been more suitable. Indeed, the author even states the following:

[Universities] must design curricula that focus on solving practical problems, such as providing clean water to a growing population.

As noted by several of the commenters, how can a religion cirriculum achieve that? If it can't address practical problems, then lets get rid of religion PhDs.

---

The second article ('Seven ages of the PhD') is by a number of authors, each of whom completed their PhD in a different decade: Raymond Gosling 1950s, Cheryll Tickle 1960s, Steve W. Running 1970s, Yao Tandong 1980s, Andras Dinnyes 1990s, A. A. Osowole 2000s, & Erika Cule who is due to complete her PhD in 2012. Each of the authors gives a brief synopsis of their experiences during these years and compares to the current PhD climate.

Particularly interesting is the section by Raymond Gosling, who worked with Maurice Wilkins and later Rosalind Franklin at King's College London and is credited with taking the infamous first picture of the stucture of DNA.

Gosling says:

Randall's biophysics unit was a wonderfully energetic place to work. However, in those days relationships between staff and students were rather formal. All the men wore ties with their white lab coats, and the senior common room at King's was for men only...He told me that he didn't want to see my PhD until it was submitted — I can't imagine that happening nowadays.

Other notable quotes include:

Tickle (1960s):

Nowadays, PhDs are much more structured. Students are not given as free a rein as I was, nor are they allowed to make as many mistakes. There is a greater emphasis on acquiring data. Students also often work with others rather than alone. These differences reflect the changes over the past 40 years in the way in which research is carried out, and its growing pressures.

Running (1970s):

I finished my PhD in 1979, just before personal computers arrived. So it was written on a typewriter, with 53 hand-drawn figures. The subject of this labour of love was inducing water stress on 13 pine trees by cutting their leaves off and measuring desiccation responses. Looking back now, my PhD research seems highly esoteric. The work built fundamental understanding of leaf-scale physiology but had no policy relevance. The only practical value was in understanding why your Christmas tree turns brown. I think how innocent we all were then, doing weird science and looking for cheap beer.

Tandong (1980s):

I graduated from Lanzhou University in China's Gansu Province in 1978. At that time, the postgraduate system in China was immature. During the Cultural Revolution (1966–76), the whole education system was broken, and it was only after 1978 that the degree system was restored. There were probably only a few hundred PhD students in China.

Erika Cule (2010s):

The first draft of the human genome was published when I was still at school.

---

The next three articles comment on an increasingly problematic situation - the bottle neck that has emerged from a large number of PhD graduates and a relatively low number of academic positions. Alison Cook ('Education: Rethinking PhDs') recommends thinking outside the box, as opposed to just staying on the established treadmill of Degree-PhD-Postdoc-Academic position.

Here, Nature presents five approaches to shaking up the hallowed foundations of academia. They range from throwing scientists deep into independent study, to going interdisciplinary, to forgoing the PhD altogether.

1 Jump in at the deep end
2 Forget academia
3 Trample the boundaries
4 Get it online
5 Skip the PhD

All good options, but it ultimately depends on the person.

---

The fourth article, ('Education: The PhD factory') discusses PhDs on a country-by-country basis - some in which prospects for PhD graduates are on the way up, some on the way down, and some which are stagnating.

Japan, for example...

In some countries, including the United States and Japan, people who have trained at great length and expense to be researchers confront a dwindling number of academic jobs, and an industrial sector unable to take up the slack. Supply has outstripped demand and, although few PhD holders end up unemployed, it is not clear that spending years securing this high-level qualification is worth it for a job as, for example, a high-school teacher...

Of all the countries in which to graduate with a science PhD, Japan is arguably one of the worst. In the 1990s, the government set a policy to triple the number of postdocs to 10,000, and stepped up PhD recruitment to meet that goal. The policy was meant to bring Japan's science capacity up to match that of the West — but is now much criticized because, although it quickly succeeded, it gave little thought to where all those postdocs were going to end up.

Overall, the statistics seem to show that the benefits of doing a PhD are dwindling:

---

So...

PhD - what's the point?

The final article ('What is a PhD really worth?') by Peter Fiske sums up the whole situation for me:

...I believe the most important lesson is that no programme of higher education can guarantee its graduates gainful and lucrative employment. At best, a graduate programme in any discipline can provide its students with key skills, knowledge and abilities. How the graduates apply that learning is up to them.

I agree with this. For me, achieving the ability to think critically and laterally is the point to doing a PhD (whatever the discipline). It is just as important as the eventual career path. The ability to critically assess any given topic or situation is advantageous in any walk of life and is something that employers will recognise and actively seek out. A good PhD program will provide the environment for students to learn these skills, regardless of whether they gain direct employment from such a program.

At the end of the day, a PhD is a very personal thing. No-one should go into one lightly, but no-one should be afraid to pursue a PhD based on downstream career prospects. My philosophy has always been to try and work in a field that I am interested in. I have been lucky enough to live up to that so far, and part of that was gaining a PhD in molecular immunology. I would change things here and there if I could, sure; but I have no major regrets.

Read More...

Summary only...

Terminator vs Marty McFly

Where were you at precisely 8.11pm last night?

At home?

Dining out?

Running for a bus?

Wherever it was, remember it, because that's where you were the exact moment when the missile-controlling computer network Skynet became self aware, thus heralding the end of human civilisation as we know it. That's right. Arnie-shaped Terminators and other gloopy shape-shifting bad guys are gonna be all over the place soon, so watch out.

On the plus side, it's only 1,635 days until Sunday, 11 October 2015, when Marty McFly will arrive and take all the Terminators down in a hilarious scenario involving hoverboards and a big pile of excrement. Join the party here!

Read More...

Summary only...

Law of Non-Contradiction

I don't necessarily take the position that the Law of Non-Contradiction doesn't hold, but I also don't necessarily accept a common refutation of this position, which involves reductio ad absurdum. That is, when someone says "if the Law of Non-Contradiction doesn't hold, then it does hold, doesn't it?". The reason I don't accept this is two fold:

1) The refutation takes the form of reductio ad absurdum and attempts to use proof by contradiction. Essentially, the contradiction that is presented is that you are both right and wrong at the same time, meaning the argument is reduced to absurdity. However, the emergence of a contradiction does not refute the position that the Law of Non-Contradiction doesn't hold, because the very nature of this position allows for contradictions.


2) In applying proof by contradiction, the refutation already accepts that the law of non-contradiction holds in order to show that it holds. Thus, the argument is circular and so doesn't refute the original position.


I have blogged about this subject before, and am currently in the middle of a conversation about it with John Fraser (JF) on the Premier forums, which I present below the fold. It started by JF sharing this anecdote about his philosophy professor:

JF: My seminary philosophy professor (a student of Plantinga's) had a standard response when some smart-alec in the back would try to dispute the law of non-contradiction (usually with some kind of half-baked appeal to quantum theory like what you guys are doing). He would say, "well, then I'm right, aren't I?" How can you contradict that (having already denied the law of non-contradiction)?

.
.
.

Rhiggs (RH): Perhaps I'm missing something, but can someone please explain why a legitimate answer to John Fraser's oft mentioned philosophy professor can't simply be...

"Well, then you're wrong, aren't you?"

...seeing as the professor, in order to give his response, has accepted the student's proposition that the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold? That is, under the terms that the law doesn't hold, if he's wrong he's actually right (as he states). but it also means that if he's right he's actually wrong. As I see it, the back and forth could go on like this ad infinitum, without actually affiriming either position.

.
.
.

JF: Earth to Rhiggs: the point of the statement is to show that BY THE STUDENT'S OWN STANDARDS he has no way to object that the professor is wrong. Get it? It's not an admission by the professor that the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold!

This is a form of reductio ad absurdum. In a reductio argument, the one making the reductio does not have to accept the conclusion of the argument he is trying to refute - rather, he shows that it leads to an absurdity.

.
.
.

RH: I know that he is not admitting that the law of non-contradiction fails, but in order to show that the student's argument leads to absurdity, he has to show what happens when the law fails. In order to do this, his argument relies on adopting the student's position.

That is, he is really saying, "well, if the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold, then I'm right, aren't I?". But the student can just turn this back on the professor and say "well, if the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold, a position you needed to adopt in order to make your point, then you're wrong, aren't you?". The point being that the professor's argument itself is also reduced to absurdity. I'm not saying the student is correct in the first place, but that the professor's response isn't sufficient to refute it.

In addition, the professor is simply showing that if the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold, then it leads to contradictions, and thus absurdity. But of course it does - that is the very claim! By using the emergence of contradictions, the professor is using the law of non-contradiction to show that the law of non-contradiction holds, which seems circular.

.
.
.

JF: Rhiggs,

That is, he is really saying, "well, if the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold, then I'm right, aren't I?". But the student can just turn this back on the professor and say "well, if the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold, a position you needed to adopt in order to make your point, then you're wrong, aren't you?".

Well, he could say those words perhaps. The problem is, in saying this he's saying that the professor is NOT right, but he's already denied the law of non-contradiction. But in saying, "then you're wrong, aren't you?" he would be AFFIRMING the law of non-contradiction - unless he wants to say that the professor is both right and not right about the same point. So actually this would be playing exactly into the trap which the professor has set for him. He can't deny the professor's claim to be right, he could only add another claim, namely that he is not right. And then he can try to affirm that those two propositions are perfectly compatible. But that would be sheer nonsense as even the befuddled student would hopefully be forced to realize.

In addition, the professor is simply showing that if the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold, then it leads to contradictions, and thus absurdity. But of course it does - that is the very claim! By using the emergence of contradictions, the professor is using the law of non-contradiction to show that the law of non-contradiction holds, which seems circular.

The problem is much deeper than that. It means the law of non-contradiction is necessary even for the student to make any claims about the law of non-contradiction. Note that I'm not saying that this proves the existence of God (a'la presuppositionalism) - just that in denying the law of non-contradiction, you are essentially denying the ability to deny anything. And yes, that is absurd. You might as well say, "I deny the truth claim that says that a truth claim can be denied." It's as self-referentially incoherent as saying that there are no absolute truth - which is itself an absolute truth claim!

.
.
.

RH: Let me be clear here. I'm not agreeing with the student, I'm just disagreeing with the professor's refutation.

But in saying, "then you're wrong, aren't you?" he would be AFFIRMING the law of non-contradiction ...

I don't see how this is so in two different ways. If he says the professor is wrong, then he is denying the law, not affirming it, as the professor's position is that the law holds. Also, he is denying the law by the very act of claiming that the professor's position is both right and wrong at the same time.

...unless he wants to say that the professor is both right and not right about the same point

Which is exactly the point. The student could say this if the law of non-contradiction doesn't hold. He could say the same about any statement, even his own. The professor might claim that this reduces the student's argument to absurdity, but in doing so he is relying on proof by contradiction, i.e. it is absurd because you can't be both right and wrong.

This fails for two reasons:

1) Showing the emergence of a contradiction does not refute the student's position, as this is his position, that contradictions are allowed.

2) In applying proof by contradiction, the professor is already accepting that the law of non-contradiction holds in order to show that it holds. His argument is circular and so doesn't refute the student's position.

just that in denying the law of non-contradiction, you are essentially denying the ability to deny anything. And yes, that is absurd.

As I see it, by denying the law of non-contradiction, you are actually allowing for any particular thing to be both denied and affirmed at the same time, not just denied. I agree that it is absurd - in that it is of no apparent practical use to humans - but it is not refuted using the professor's method due to the reasons presented above.

Interesting topic.

.
.
.

JF: Rhiggs,

I don't think you get the point of the refutation. Sure, the student could take the position, "you're both right AND wrong, as am I, because I don't believe the law of non-contradiction holds," but then even as he says this, he is implicitly affirming that the law of non-contradiction DOES hold - otherwise he would not be able to say the law of non-contradiction DOESN'T hold. Get it?

So actually his statement would have to be modified to, "you're right and wrong just as I am right and wrong because the law of non-contradiction both does and does not hold." But hopefully the light will come on at some point and the student will realize that this is all just sheer nonsensical gibberish with no content or truth value whatsoever.

.
.
.

RH:

I don't think you get the point of the refutation.

I'm not trying to be difficult here, but you're right, I don't get it. By the student's standards, if the law doesn't hold, anything that anyone says can mean what they say and the opposite all at once. It's absurd! But I still don't see how it has been refuted. The professor is simply applying the law to refute the denial of the law, and that is just circular.

Sure, the student could take the position, "you're both right AND wrong, as am I, because I don't believe the law of non-contradiction holds," but then even as he says this, he is implicitly affirming that the law of non-contradiction DOES hold - otherwise he would not be able to say the law of non-contradiction DOESN'T hold. Get it?

No. Why does the student, by his own standards, need to implicitly affirm the law in order to deny it?

So actually his statement would have to be modified to, "you're right and wrong just as I am right and wrong because the law of non-contradiction both does and does not hold." But hopefully the light will come on at some point and the student will realize that this is all just sheer nonsensical gibberish with no content or truth value whatsoever.

You say that the student's position is gibberish because of the multiple contradictions that arise, but that still doesn't actually refute the student's position due to my points above about why the professor's refutation is flawed.

Firstly,
- The student's position is that contradictions are allowed
- The professor's refutation is that the student's position leads to a contradiction (you can't be both right and wrong at the same time)
- But this fails, because the student's position is that contradictions are allowed (if the student is right, then he most certainly can be both right and wrong at the same time)

Secondly,
- The student's position is that contradictions are allowed
- The professor's refutation relies on proof by contradiction (reductio ad absurdum), which requires the law of non-contradiction to hold
- Thus, the professor is assuming that the law holds in order to show that the law holds
- The professor's argument is circular and, therefore, is not sufficient to refute the student (pointing out a logical fallacy with the use of another logical fallacy isn't very impressive)

If you can address these two points then I might be convinced.

.
.
.

JF: Rhiggs,

If you can address these two points then I might be convinced.

You're really making me earn my paycheck on this one. Oh, wait, I do this for free. It just feels like a job sometimes.

You want me to address these "two" points - with 3 and 4 subpoints, respectively?

Probably this won't work after everything else I've already said, but basically the problem is this. You keep considering the whole thing from the standpoint that the student's position is that contradictions are allowed. Right? The problem is, as the professor shows, the student's position also leads to the conclusion that contradictions are NOT allowed. So are contradictions allowed or aren't they? You can't just say, "well, that's a contradiction but it doesn't matter because contradictions are allowed," because by his own position contradictions are NOT allowed. You have to apply the rule at the meta-level, not just the sub-level. In other words, you can't just apply the student's rule to everything below the level of the rule itself, because it also has to apply to the rule.

The point of all of this, hopefully, is that the student will see his position leads to a situation which even he doesn't find desirable. That his position amounts to nothing more than meaningless word games and makes it impossible to talk about anything coherently. He could, I suppose, just say, "why talk about anything coherently?" The problem, though, is that in saying that the law of non-contradiction does not obtain, he presumably takes himself to be saying something coherent. If he isn't, then who cares?

.
.
.

RH: As I suspected, you are still simply saying that a contradiction disproves the position that contradictions are allowed. This would be a perfectly acceptable way of disproving most positions, but not this particular one due to the very nature of what is being claimed. Put simply, proof by contradiction cannot be used to prove the law of non-contradiction, or to disprove its negation. In doing so, you are saying nothing more than it's wrong because it's wrong.

So are contradictions allowed or aren't they?

This is where you are going wrong. You can't just decide the answer to this and then subsequently apply it to the problem, because this is the very thing that is being debated. Your approach is completely circular.

You have to apply the rule at the meta-level, not just the sub-level. In other words, you can't just apply the student's rule to everything below the level of the rule itself, because it also has to apply to the rule.

That is exactly what I am doing. I am applying the position that 'contradictions are allowed' to every level in this. If the rule holds, then it both holds and doesn't hold, so any apparent disproof is not a disproof at all, because the position implies that the rule both holds and doesn't hold at the same time, and of course it also doesn't imply that! Call the position nonsense or gibberish or meaningless word games if you like, but that is irrelevant to the legitimacy of the refutation, which I still contend is flawed.

.
.
.

Read More...

Summary only...