Timeline for Is a research thesis (report) with zero contribution to human knowledge acceptable?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 27, 2019 at 14:53 | comment | added | cbeleites | ... designed the study on their own rather than just using the Russian design. And theses usually require novelty as that makes finding out what the candidate's work is (for which they are graded) is unambiguous/much easier. | |
| Nov 27, 2019 at 14:52 | comment | added | cbeleites | @Jeremy in that particular example the scientific advancement would certainly be weakend, but it probably wouldn't be zero (it's unlikely that the same set of stressors was tested, medical problems may differ between different populations, so even not finding any difference to back then would be some advancement). Also, as more replication is crucially needed in the life sciences, even "only" replicating the Russion results would IMHO be an advancement. Though (again IMHO) it would not be sufficient on its own for the thesis: the problem is that the candidate then cannot demonstrate they... | |
| S Feb 25, 2014 at 0:10 | history | suggested | rodrigorgs | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Made a sentence clearer.
|
| Feb 24, 2014 at 23:52 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Feb 25, 2014 at 0:10 | |||||
| Feb 5, 2014 at 20:18 | comment | added | J.y B.y | @Superbest By obscure, I meant non-translated in English. A lot of results were obtained in parallel during the cold war, and some were obtained separaterly but "rediscovered" only later. | |
| Feb 4, 2014 at 9:11 | comment | added | Superbest | @Jeremy Perhaps the point is that a PhD is supposed to have the wisdom to first ascertain whether he is researching a mere consequence of a Russian from the 50s before putting in an enormous amount of work. | |
| Sep 8, 2013 at 14:23 | comment | added | J.y B.y | Actually, a really non-significant result would be to do the entire research work (e.g. about psoriasis and stress) following the most rigorous scientific process, only to find at the end of the process that the result is a consequence of an obscure Russian (let's say) from the 50s. The student has followed and learned the scientific process, but did not contribute to human knowledge (apart from improving the index of its bibliography). Does he/she deserves a PhD for his learning? This idea is new to me but I kind of like it, albeit I doubt the whole community would agree. | |
| Sep 6, 2013 at 18:14 | history | answered | Jeremy Miles | CC BY-SA 3.0 |