TheSage gives definition 3 of the word philosophy:
"3. The rational investigation of questions about existence and knowledge and ethics."
I feel that the ANDS should be ORS:
"3. The rational investigation of questions about existence or knowledge or ethics."
My PhD was a rational investigation of questions about (planning) knowledge. I also investigated rationally the existence (of data calls).
I do not recall any mention of ethics in the thesis-book. {However, I managed to smuggle the word "philosophical" once into the text of my thesis-book!}
Vedamani - as Ian suggests - it will either likely to have been 'smuggled in' or, more likely, it's actually quite visible - but perhaps 'disguised' as something else. For instance, I would expect that at least the methodology chapter should have quite a philosophical content to it - but might be referred to more in terms of theory, framework, conceptual, paradigm or methodology itself. Many 'philosophical' terms are used interchangeably with other contexts such as these. Of course, particular methodologies should have a 'heavy' philosophical presence i.e. phenomenological, discourse analysis etc. If they do not - then, most likely, the thesis is a fail.
I have a question that sort of links to this:
When doing a PhD, understandably, people take a scientific approach to establishing an issue, asking a question, exploring (often by observation/experiment), reporting findings (often scientifically presented and analysed), then drawing the various elements together into a PhD thesis.
What do you do when you feel that the 'science' is stamping out the 'philosophy' in what, after all, is a PhD? We submit to 'scientific' journals, compose 'scientific' questions that can be answered by 'scientific' means ... In many new fields, until there is a body of knowledge or identified issues to subject to scientific investigation, there is the need for some logic & reasoning ... some speculation as to what might lie on the other side of the hill.
I would love some answers to this. Although I value & practice scientific method, I also believe that philosophical observations are important. Great generals always envisage their enemy's next move, we make contingency & 'what if' plans ... we make informed decisions based on our perceived logic and experience. If we ignore this type of 'speculation', then we (re)act only to the known. We may also limit our ability to anticipate the future.
Example 1.2 of oxforddictionaries.com:
The study of the theoretical basis of a particular branch of knowledge or experience: the philosophy of science. So a PhD in the sciences should contain (inter alia) a study of the underlying theories before settling on one and discarding the others.
More importantly, looking at the roots of the word:
“Middle English: from Old French philosophie, via Latin from Greek philosophia 'love of wisdom'. Ask yourself: does your thesis-book demonstrate that you love wisdom? That is, is your thesis-book honest, accurate, pure in purpose, substantiated, unbiassed, respectful? Is it a significant, original contribution to human knowledge?
To answer the “hijacker's” questions:
1. There is only enough space in the PhD thesis-book for a critical analysis of existing theorising and potential new theory.
2. The basic requirements for a DSc are different to those for a PhD. See your university's regulations.
3. Yes. Your thesis-book can wonder about the problems of universe, before laying down what is now know but which was not known before the thesis-book was completed.
4. It is not sufficient to “to pose philosophical questions and contribute reason and logic to discuss problems.” That will fill only the first chapter. Other chapters will contain “reliable information” that must “be structured and presented in a way that” it leaves no doubt in the mind of the reader, and be presented in the expected way so that it can easily be digested.
To go back to the original question... We do not value any PhD thesis-book in the field of economics (or any field except philosophy!) which has lots of philosophising, (what-if's) without any watertight evidence being brought before the jury.
Ian - sorry if I did not make myself clear. I am not disparaging the place or legitimacy of science, nor am I suggesting that we can simply pose philosophical questions & add nothing of real 'substance'. I simply asked if PhD actually had space for philosophy anymore, or if a purely scientific approach was now seen as the only permissible approach. If so, to me it seems misnamed and misleading. I support your view about 'lots of philosophising', but surely it is reasonable to allow some, especially if there is no current data or we are envisioning the future, or looking for reasons which might explain behaviours, trends etc.?
As for the 'hijacking': as there had been no comment or activity on this thread since 25.04.14 (& rather than re-invent the wheel), I thought that the best part of 9 months was a sufficient period for people to gestate their contributions, before I gate-crashed.
Sorry if I interrupted you intellectual train of thought ... ;-)
During my MPhil studies in Economics I had the oppurtunity to study a wide range of Philosophy: I do not regret about this, although when I had the lectures and the exams it was too tiring. After all theories come and pass away every century, Philosophy is what remains as a human additive value over time.
@Nicolas. The gestation period is over! Welcome to the refreshed site.
Sorry about the epithet. I may not have found your post if you had started a new RG question.
We have certainly come a long way from the Greek root. There is no hint of a University's requirements for an original contribution in the
Greek root. Some serious thought about the existing theories is expected. Get great clarity on what someone means when they use the words 'theory' and 'philosophy', especially if your academic career is going to hinge on it!
@Demetris. A lot of culling needs to be done also.
- Badges
- Science topic