Science Forums - Philosophy of Science http://hypography.com/forums/ What makes science science? en Fri, 20 Nov 2009 23:00:35 GMT vBulletin 60 http://hypography.com/forums/images/styles/new_facebook/images/misc/rss.jpg Science Forums - Philosophy of Science http://hypography.com/forums/ <![CDATA[What can a professor get away with when it comes to working with student's research?]]> http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-science/21405-what-can-professor-get-away-when-comes-working-students-research.html Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:41:28 GMT My question is, what would a student have to be concerned about regarding professors capitalizing... My question is, what would a student have to be concerned about regarding professors capitalizing on the requirement of students to work with senior academics as far as who is deemed responsible for the research?

In some cases if a student approaches a professor without a research interest, the professor puts the student to work on something they have been working on. How is this situation differentiated (if at all) from the situation where the student approaches the professor with a new research idea and the professor offers to help?

Is it just an issue of whether the student goes on to provide more contributions in the field..

Meaning that a student might limit their initial research to a small piece of the puzzle.. or is this hazardous because might the professor use the understanding of the topic given by assisting the student to preemptively publish the more climatic results of that research path "on their own"?

I understand the goal of the enviornment is to get new ideas out in the open as quickly as possible, but other issues must be considered. For one, there must be motivation for people to share their ideas in this manner as opposed to patenting them and attempting to capitalize. Having someone else take the credit for the contribution hardly qualifies. Second, a person's level of credibility affects the ease with which they are able to make further contributions and so it is important that a person who is capable of such contributions is accurately assigned that credibility.

I also understand that many professors (especially one that I would choose to work with) are intelligent enough to pick up on a new idea and fully understand and work with it in a short time period, and that they devote time apart from their busy lives to help students navigate the minefield of academia. I understand that taking even a fully developed idea and getting it to the stage where it can be published is significant work that a professor should receive credit for assisting with.

However, everything is impossibly trivial once you understand it (in this case, once someone else explains it to you), and it would grossly arrogant and unrealistic to simply presume the elder the protagonist in the presentation of any new idea. Especially in a case where the participation of said elder would not be necessary for the other party to successfully publish the idea.

By the way, I respect the person I am working with and just want a clearer picture of how things work in this arena. I am also far to clever for anyone to succeed at taking credit for my accomplishment as long as it would be understood as academic dishonesty by the world at large.

What I am more concerned about is if academia has created some kind of philosophical distortion of truth in which "elders" are automatically assigned credit for the discoveries of their students - in which case I need to take a different path with my research. ]]> Philosophy of Science Kriminal99 http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-science/21405-what-can-professor-get-away-when-comes-working-students-research.html The Irrational Atheist http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-science/21341-irrational-atheist.html Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:12:58 GMT An atheist does not believe in god or religion. One can argue that God and religion are irrational,... An atheist does not believe in god or religion. One can argue that God and religion are irrational, since they are not subject to reason or scientific proof. But not having that one aspect of human irrationality, does not imply all atheists are immune to other forms irrationality, since there are dozens more.

Say you had two irrational people, one who believes in God and the another, who claims to be an atheist. How would their irrationality differ? For example, let us look at killing for some irrational reason or impulse. It happens all the time. The religious person might kill for god or for their religion. If the irrational atheist decided to kill, what would be their motivation? Theoretically, it could be anything, as long as it doesn't include God. That would be irrational. ]]> Philosophy of Science HydrogenBond http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-science/21341-irrational-atheist.html Unknowable Ontology? http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-science/21358-unknowable-ontology.html Thu, 05 Nov 2009 03:35:25 GMT . *Moderation Note: The following 14 Posts have been moved from Relativity of Motion discussion... .

Moderation Note: The following 14 Posts have been moved from Relativity of Motion discussion from “What is Time” where they were off topic.

.

what kind of chosen beliefs you have subscribed to think that things in themselves were forever unknowable and that ontology and epistemology are mutually exclusive? kantian? correct me if i am wrong, but you yourself in your approach chose an arbitrary definition of what ontology ought to be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AnssiH (Post 283628)
Now perhaps that example also is pointing out how these arguments tend to turn into completely pointless bickering about what things supposedly are "in-themselves". A primordial "egg" is not an "egg" unless you say it's an "egg", and same goes for anything you can think of; you had to define it first didn't you? "Whatever you say it is, it isn't", everyone remembers what that means?
but that is half truth. and probably a wrong fundamental assumption to build a worldview. i'll say what ever you say it is, it is. the things in themselves as they represent themselves to us through our perception are the exact images of themselves. although we cannot have a "live telecast" of the events that took place, the same events that we witness in delay due to the finite speed of light is the same events that took place nonetheless.

Quote:
How many out there feel like asking "what is time?" and suppose to find ontologically valid answer?
Ahhh [/rant] -Anssi
if you have chosen to answer the question based on data patterns and process, this is the becoming aspect of ontology. but traditionally the ontology of metaphysics seeks for the fundamental unitive substance (being) of space, time, particles, fields and what not. the valid ontological answer is that time has no physical or substantial reality because it is only a mental construct for measuring motions. particles? they are statistical eigenvalues. fields? who knows what they are. but space do exists, because we lived in it. it contains us and everything else. its being cannot be denied.

as kant said " space is not a concept". ]]> Philosophy of Science watcher http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-science/21358-unknowable-ontology.html