Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
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.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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.
Look at this way: Excluding those who became atheists after studying theology, how many atheists become theologians?
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 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 again, that is different. Could you disagree with the fundamentals of Marxism while calling yourself a Marxist scholar?I almost completely disagree with our capitalist / free enterprise system, but I could probably be a successful entrepreneur in spite of that.
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.Again, if you are opposed to deconstructionists / postmodern theorists then be careful--everything in this thread looks like it plays right into their hands.
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!
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.
Could a person earn a PhD in Physics but have little faith and/or belief in the material?
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.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?
Why sure.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.
No.Or has a person mastered the material only if he/she believes that it reflects reality and that it must be taken seriously?
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 have no idea how you get from one to the other, logically.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?
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.)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.)
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'.How much information did Newton and Pascal have about the universe they lived in, during their lives?
Look up Sir Isaak Newton on wikipedia and you'll see what a wide knowledge of the universe he acquired.You didn't answer my question.
How much knowledge of the universe we live in, did these two people have when they lived?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?