Could a person earn a PhD in Physics but have little faith and/or belief in the material?

[Archaeopteryx]

Could a person earn a PhD in Physics while agreeing with and/or believing absolutely none of the discipline's findings?

If someone's disagreement with a field was so deep and all-encompassing, then I doubt they would ever enter into that field in the first place.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Look at this way: Excluding those who became atheists after studying theology, how many atheists become theologians?

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

If someone's disagreement with a field was so deep and all-encompassing, then I doubt they would ever enter into that field in the first place.

Look at this way: Excluding those who became atheists after studying theology, how many atheists become theologians?

I am sure that when theology dominated there were theologians who did not really agree with or believe in what they were studying and writing. If it was the dominant metanarrative/paradigm/system, and if you wanted to be powerful and influential, it was probably what you did even if you did not really agree with it.

I almost completely disagree with our capitalist / free enterprise system, but I could probably be a successful entrepreneur in spite of that.

Again, if you are opposed to deconstructionists / postmodern theorists then be careful--everything in this thread looks like it plays right into their hands.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I am sure that when theology dominated there were theologians who did not really agree with or believe in what they were studying and writing.

Yes, but remember you asked about someone who had a deep and all-encompassing disagreement with the field in which they were studying, not someone who merely disagreed with the dominant paradigm of their time.

I almost completely disagree with our capitalist / free enterprise system, but I could probably be a successful entrepreneur in spite of that.

Yes, but again, that is different. Could you disagree with the fundamentals of Marxism while calling yourself a Marxist scholar?

Again, if you are opposed to deconstructionists / postmodern theorists then be careful--everything in this thread looks like it plays right into their hands.

You proposed someone who disagrees with virtually every single facet of their field. That's an extreme position, and I think that such an individual is unlikely to ever enter the field they so profoundly disagree with to begin with. But perhaps you want to talk more about individuals who disagree only with the dominant paradigm in their field? That's different from disagreeing with the entire field of study on all matters, great and small.

 

[KCfromNC]

I'd think that getting a PhD in physics would mean you'd understand the experiments which prove the physics to be correct.

The questions here aren't at any practical level that would ever matter to any experiment. They're along the lines of "but, like, how do you know you're not a brain in a vat making up the entire universe in your mind, man" kind of ramblings. You know, the kind of questions which sound deep but really have zero practical effect on how we live our lives - philosophy!

 

[Paradoxum]

The questions here aren't at any practical level that would ever matter to any experiment. They're along the lines of "but, like, how do you know you're not a brain in a vat making up the entire universe in your mind, man" kind of ramblings. You know, the kind of questions which sound deep but really have zero practical effect on how we live our lives - philosophy!

I don't totally agree. My degree is in philosophy, and many of my modules were to do with ethics, bioethics, politics, and law... things that practically effect us.

But I don't think abstract considerations are pointless either. I wouldn't say the 'brain in a vat' question is a shallow question.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

Yes, but remember you asked about someone who had a deep and all-encompassing disagreement with the field in which they were studying, not someone who merely disagreed with the dominant paradigm of their time.

Yes, but again, that is different. Could you disagree with the fundamentals of Marxism while calling yourself a Marxist scholar?

You proposed someone who disagrees with virtually every single facet of their field. That's an extreme position, and I think that such an individual is unlikely to ever enter the field they so profoundly disagree with to begin with. But perhaps you want to talk more about individuals who disagree only with the dominant paradigm in their field? That's different from disagreeing with the entire field of study on all matters, great and small.

No matter how likely or unlikely it is to happen, could somebody earn a PhD in Physics in spite of completely disagreeing with Physics?

If the answer is no, why not?

If the answer is yes, doesn't that show that Physics is entirely a cultural act? Doesn't it show that Physics is just another metanarrative--albeit a long, well-developed, complicated one--and that deconstructionism / postmodernism is right?

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

Could you get a PhD in mathematics without believing the basic principles of mathematics are true? How about engineering? I think it would be difficult to say in your thesis that, for instance, "experimental data confirm the thesis that the particle travels at a speed of x", something that you've both calculated based on principles and measured, all the while believing in your heart that it's all false. Kind of like " I'll put down on this exam that the acceleration of gravity is 9.8 m/s^2 so i can pass but I know based on personal revelation that it is only 6 m/s^2."

 

[Crowns&Laurels]

Could a person earn a PhD in Physics but have little faith and/or belief in the material?

Jason Lisle. He has a PhD in astrophysics and is a young Earth creationist with ICR. A rank that high isn't common with YECism, unfortunately- he's one of the few.
But i'ts not 'having little faith in the material', but rather having a different conclusion of the material, and those like Jason Lisle have been important opponents against other scientists like Dawkins who like to feed off the less educated.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No matter how likely or unlikely it is to happen, could somebody earn a PhD in Physics in spite of completely disagreeing with Physics?

If the answer is no, why not?

If the answer is yes, doesn't that show that Physics is entirely a cultural act? Doesn't it show that Physics is just another metanarrative--albeit a long, well-developed, complicated one--and that deconstructionism / postmodernism is right?

I answered yes, that it is possible in principle, but no, that is unlikely to happen in practice. Why? Because someone who disagrees with everything in an entire field of research is very unlikely to enter that field to begin with.

 

[quatona]

Surely somebody could have the intellectual / cognitive tools to master all of the material while at the same time saying that he/she takes all of it with a grain of salt.

Why sure.
Some people want their disagreement to be educated.

Or has a person mastered the material only if he/she believes that it reflects reality and that it must be taken seriously?

No.

 

[KCfromNC]

No matter how likely or unlikely it is to happen, could somebody earn a PhD in Physics in spite of completely disagreeing with Physics?

If the answer is no, why not?

If the answer is yes, doesn't that show that Physics is entirely a cultural act?Doesn't it show that Physics is just another metanarrative--albeit a long, well-developed, complicated one--and that deconstructionism / postmodernism is right?

No. The fact that someone can ignore facts and reality says very little about a particular philosophical approach being correct.

 

[quatona]

No matter how likely or unlikely it is to happen, could somebody earn a PhD in Physics in spite of completely disagreeing with Physics?

[...]

If the answer is yes, doesn't that show that Physics is entirely a cultural act? Doesn't it show that Physics is just another metanarrative--albeit a long, well-developed, complicated one--and that deconstructionism / postmodernism is right?

I have no idea how you get from one to the other, logically.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Could you get a PhD in mathematics without believing the basic principles of mathematics are true? How about engineering? I think it would be difficult to say in your thesis that, for instance, "experimental data confirm the thesis that the particle travels at a speed of x", something that you've both calculated based on principles and measured, all the while believing in your heart that it's all false. Kind of like " I'll put down on this exam that the acceleration of gravity is 9.8 m/s^2 so i can pass but I know based on personal revelation that it is only 6 m/s^2."

Montain_Girl406: It's interesting that Isaac Newton and Blaise Pascal were mathematical experts and combined this with a strong belief in God, apparently. (You obviously know much more about math than I do, though.)

 

[bhsmte]

Montain_Girl406: It's interesting that Isaac Newton and Blaise Pascal were mathematical experts and combined this with a strong belief in God, apparently. (You obviously know much more about math than I do, though.)

How much information did Newton and Pascal have about the universe they lived in, during their lives?

 

[faroukfarouk]

How much information did Newton and Pascal have about the universe they lived in, during their lives?

Their scientific discoveries have stood the test of time; e.g., gravity, air pressure. I'm not a scientist. I've heard of the term 'first cause'.

 

[bhsmte]

Their scientific discoveries have stood the test of time; e.g., gravity, air pressure. I'm not a scientist. I've heard of the term 'first cause'.

You didn't answer my question.

How much knowledge of the universe we live in, did these two people have when they lived?

 

[faroukfarouk]

You didn't answer my question.

How much knowledge of the universe we live in, did these two people have when they lived?

Look up Sir Isaak Newton on wikipedia and you'll see what a wide knowledge of the universe he acquired.

 

[bhsmte]

Look up Sir Isaak Newton on wikipedia and you'll see what a wide knowledge of the universe he acquired.

Newton lived 400 years ago. Do you think we have acquired knowledge about the universe we live in since his time?

 

[Placeholder]

A person could be an absolute idealist (as opposed to a materialist) and still earn a degree. It wouldn't change any of the data but it would radically change your basic assumptions of what 'reality' is.