Search:

I had some fun with a concept like this earlier this week. Helped a friend of mine with a paper she had to write for her political science degree. She was given a chapter from Paul Feyerbend's 'Against method' essentially debating the ideology of science being the end-all of discovery and if reasoning had a place in furthering science.

There were very valid points such as Galileo Galilei figuring out that the planets orbited the sun with reasoning as opposed to the scientific method and the fact that science itself was created from reasoning making it silly to dismiss reasoning as a valid form of progression in the structure it created.

I think its of note that a PhD is literally a doctorate in philosophy in a field. Its the mainstay of the highest level of academics even in straight deductive fields such as mathematics for a reason. Examining the potential of 'what could be' allows us to innovate and move past where we are now even if such growth is seen as intellectual masterbation.

One example that comes to mind is William Shockley. Brilliant level of genius who was able to work outside established structures and do whatever he felt like because he was so good. The guy was a monster of a mind at bell labs (which really is saying something) but he was so good he would chase whatever tangents he fancied at the time even spending time designing and riding unicycles up and down the halls. People had no understanding of why he did the things he did and most would look at him as more of an artist than a scientist. Regardless his mental gymnastics helped create the transistors and foundation of information theory that allows me to type this message.

I think a defining moment in my life was when I read about Kants deterministic view of innovation. Looking at mental thought as a closed loop system in which you are only able to think in terms of what you have already thought and the stimulus around you. I personally believe I am able to come up with new ways of looking at things simply because I work my mind in weird ways and dive into philosophy. It gives me that external stimulus I need to draw different conclusions from the same situations we all look at which is a very basic foundation of education as seen in the PhD programs.

I had some fun with a concept like this earlier this week. Helped a friend of mine with a paper she had to write for her political science degree. She was given a chapter from Paul Feyerbend's 'Against method' essentially debating the ideology of science being the end-all of discovery and if reasoning had a place in furthering science.

There were very valid points such as Galileo Galilei figuring out that the planets orbited the sun with reasoning as opposed to the scientific method and the fact that science itself was created from reasoning making it silly to dismiss reasoning as a valid form of progression in the structure it created.

I think its of note that a PhD is literally a doctorate in philosophy in a field. Its the mainstay of the highest level of academics even in straight deductive fields such as mathematics for a reason. Examining the potential of 'what could be' allows us to innovate and move past where we are now even if such growth is seen as intellectual masterbation.

One example that comes to mind is William Shockley. Brilliant level of genius who was able to work outside established structures and do whatever he felt like because he was so good. The guy was a monster of a mind at bell labs (which really is saying something) but he was so good he would chase whatever tangents he fancied at the time even spending time designing and riding unicycles up and down the halls. People had no understanding of why he did the things he did and most would look at him as more of an artist than a scientist. Regardless his mental gymnastics helped create the transistors and foundation of information theory that allows me to type this message.

I think a defining moment in my life was when I read about Kants deterministic view of innovation. Looking at mental thought as a closed loop system in which you are only able to think in terms of what you have already thought and the stimulus around you. I personally believe I am able to come up with new ways of looking at things simply because I work my mind in weird ways and dive into philosophy. It gives me that external stimulus I need to draw different conclusions from the same situations we all look at which is a very basic foundation of education as seen in the PhD programs.