Timeline for Why is novelty mandatory for a Ph.D. degree?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 4, 2018 at 10:01 | comment | added | NoDataDumpNoContribution | "...you cannot be recognized by your peers as a scientist if you don't prove that you can produce new reliable knowledge by yourself." That might be an example of jumping to conclusions. I could recognize someone as a scientist even without that proof, for example by having enough trust that anyone could be a scientist in principle. | |
| Dec 2, 2018 at 16:33 | comment | added | Jay | Also interestingly enough is doesn't provide insight to the behind the scenes workings of the publication and review process which are machines which need much maintenance akin to the legal systems in some sense of the terms. | |
| Dec 2, 2018 at 14:32 | comment | added | ebosi | @PLL PS: Out of curiosity/interest, could you please elaborate on your point ("there are whole fields of science where this is a complete category error as to the nature of research.") — e.g., with some examples? | |
| Dec 2, 2018 at 14:24 | history | edited | ebosi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Rephrase footnote
|
| Dec 2, 2018 at 14:12 | comment | added | PLL | This answer has some excellent points — e.g. the core answer that a PhD thesis must demonstrate the candidate’s capability as a scientist, and that’s why it needs novelty — mixed in with some very tendentious and field-dependent claims, like the idea ‘“successful” is to be understood as “We have been able to demonstrate with certainty that” rather than “there is a correlation/impact/link between A and B”.’ — there are whole fields of science where this is a complete category error as to the nature of research. It would benefit from focusing more on the uncontroversial key points. | |
| Dec 2, 2018 at 13:59 | history | edited | ebosi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 110 characters in body
|
| Dec 2, 2018 at 13:46 | history | answered | ebosi | CC BY-SA 4.0 |