Unfortunately now a PhD is a requirement, not a philosophical challenge. Anyway you shoud read more about "ethics". Ethics come from "ethos"= habits. The new habits in scientific production are : publish or perish eventhough theres nothing new or useful to communicate , just to maintain a funding status or an individual or a lab. Inside new ethics the practice that you mentioned is accepted.These kind of dynamics came from US Universities where business administrators took control and unfortunately have been broadcasted through all the world since . Still on the old dynamics are some Universities in the UK and Germany.

Dear András!

Just one word to comment your critical post: awesome!

I couldn´t say anything more! It´s really clear and fascinating your point of view! It touches deep inside of the question! Is this model the better way to produce (real) Science?! Yesterday I´ve commented with some colleagues the interesting post that you cited (https://www.researchgate.net/post/Credibility_of_published_worksEvaluation_of_manuscripts?ev=home_person_like_question_object). I couldn´t avoid to comment it (take a look of my comment pls).

my best regards

Obviously, that we couldn´t generalize in all things.

For instance, I´m only co-author of articles that I´ve really contributed to them and the opposite is the same (co-authors in my papers are always have some contribution)..

In the beginning I thought that everybody operated in the same manner, but soon I understood that some co-authors were like "ghosts" (just in some papers)... :)

Dear Roberto,

I have mentioned a special type of co-authors.

According to the French etiquette, who are present are exceptions.

I understood your message :)

Unfortunately now a PhD is a requirement, not a philosophical challenge. Anyway you shoud read more about "ethics". Ethics come from "ethos"= habits. The new habits in scientific production are : publish or perish eventhough theres nothing new or useful to communicate , just to maintain a funding status or an individual or a lab. Inside new ethics the practice that you mentioned is accepted.These kind of dynamics came from US Universities where business administrators took control and unfortunately have been broadcasted through all the world since . Still on the old dynamics are some Universities in the UK and Germany.

Dear Mario,

I have thought on ethics as an innate but understandable part of the common sense and moral and have not analysed etymologically the word itself. Publish or perish are a common place. The question can be: what to publish and how to publish?

It would be interesting to read the reaction of some Americans on this slogan.

Got your point, agreed, and by complying your concept of an ethical philosopher someone will eventually starve to death. I am (South)American by heart, born in Europe, and would say the geographical pattern you suggest will become homogeneously because we have to reach concrete goals and somebody has to pay for philosophy, its just the way it is.

Dear Robert,

Would your first sentence be a bit more explicable? Who and why should die of hunger?

Dear Robert,

The slogan itself is not interesting. Only the people’s perception behind it.

The aim of people with a PhD degree may be to search for the facts and the truth. Historically they were not only truth seekers but also distributors (teachers) of this truth. They did it not merely for a living. They were called as magister or doctor, both mean teachers. How is it possible that a truth seeker involves in pretensions which are in contradiction with the principle of his guild and original starting-point? And this pretension became a practice.

Mikhail Bulgakov wrote in his novel (“Master and Margarita”) that the biggest human fault is cowardice. By the way, the personality - who said this in the novel - was called by his disciples as Teacher or Master.

The priest in the short-story of Borges ("The God's Script", from The Aleph.), is a “teacher”, too. In this short-story, the priest, who has decoded the secret of Universe, prefers silence and says: "May the mystery lettered on the tigers die with me. Whoever has seen the universe, whoever has beheld the fiery designs of the universe, cannot think in terms of one man, of that man's trivial fortunes or misfortunes, though he be that very man. That man has been he and now matters no more to him. What is the life of that other to him, the nation of that other to him, if he, now, is no one. This is why I do not pronounce the formula, why, lying here in the darkness, I let the days obliterate me."

Who would have the courage to pronounce the mysterious formula if he has stolen it?

Who and why should die of hunger if somebody is looking actually for the truth?

Andreas. Again. You should read more about what is ethics (not an ethimological problem by the way but a very adaptable philosophical definition). If you want to talk about "truth" also , there are several philosophycal definitions, that actually in the case of Aristotle and Plato point of view are almost unreachable (for more details read Aristotle "ethics" and Plato's cave myth) and NONE of the definitions apply in science (refer to Aristotle "Philosophia naturalis") . If you allow me, you definititely are acting very Kantian, with his categorical imperative, an Universal formula to act , with no adaptations. Bad thing that Kant himself reject his own categorical imperative.

A fact here is that science world , unfortunately or fortunately had to adapt to Engineering and technology, whom are based on results and timeframes.These non scientific (according to Aristotle himself, check for the word Artisans in his legacy) are expensive itselves. Nowadays you can not likely be productive without a computer or a simpe piece of technology, and as you probably know, the computer cost money. Not bad , not good, just is. As same as slavery, suicide,etc, in Aristotle times. Same thing with new ethics, which are accepted.

And just for you to know. A doctor in Philosophy task is not to search for the truth, is only search, research.Research was originally a monastic task(Please refer to Saint Thomas Aquinus and Giordano Bruno) , without a reason, and it changed after Descartes and Spinoza.

If you are going to write about philosophy please read about it in their primary texts and not modern appreciations or interpretations.

Dear Robert,

I did not want to deal with philosophy or the performance of philosophers. However, to be mistaken belong to the normal way of thinking and working in any field. I think it is normal to react differently to the events and ideas (if any?) of the world. Thanks you were so direct and have pronounced the most important two words of our age: economy and money. At the beginning of the discussion I had some questions but most of you have ignored them. Certainly, also this is usual. I may be idealistically naive but I do not consider money induced cheating in scientific form as a philosophically or morally acceptable deed. Of course, it is possible that we are narrating beside the point and repeating our own justification. However, thanks you had the courage and spent some time to write your opinion.

Dear Mario,

You are mistaken thinking my intention was to write about philosophy. Also it was not my purpose to interpret Aristotle or Plato however, you had a right feeling. I like Kant and read some of his works.

Thanks for your advice to read Aristotle and Plato. But I did not want to write about their “truth”. You, as an experienced user in philosophy must know that it is impossible to posses or learn the absolute truth. Relative truths may be summarised and mankind may have an approach. This is an infinite process and immorality or adaptable morality of some scientific workers is not an innate part of this development. Something to Plato's cave allegory or theory, it was “only” his intellectual but very interesting theoretical investigation. Science in the time of Plato was not an everyday profession.

I do think the task of a PhD (doctor of philosophy) is to search for the scientific truth, the truth of Nature. To search or research is only a simple work to have a living or be obedient servants of the actual power. We need the categoricus imperativus („Handle nur nach derjenigen Maxime, durch die du zugleich wollen kannst, dass sie ein allgemeines Gesetz werde.“)!

I repeat once more: Who would have the courage to pronounce the mysterious formula if he has stolen it?

I stress our discussion has been one-sided until now and the opinions have been hardened.

I do not think our opinions are important. What is important? To learn the view of the others.

Dear Robert,

I think everybody should address and has addressed ethics during his/her life. However, ethics is not a mere philosophical notion but a manifestation of human behaviour. Without living ethically – using ethical norms in every day life - it would be impossible to work and exist together. Certainly, it is a good business to ignore the written and unwritten ethical code and get extra “profit” from the goodness of the others. Thus, you and other scientists should not philosophize and became a new Plato or Leibnitz.

You have had a challenging sentence: “Most of these philosophers were never recognized by their contemporaries for what they did, nowadays a good precondition to starve to death, and how many were good partners and fathers?”

Aristotle and Avicenna were successful and estimated in their time. Aristotle was the teacher of Alexander the Great, Avicenna was the head physician of the emir at the age of 18.

Interestingly many professors at elite universities have excellent livings teaching theories of Aristotle or Socrates even more some of them became famous on the modern adaptability of ancient assumption or “truths”. See e.g. critical thinking, Socratic method and other as a was of life.

http://teaching.colostate.edu/tips/tip.cfm?tipid=53

http://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/socratic-teaching/606

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0UnGApiy08s

But it is another story. I do not think one person should be an omniscient being but a wide horizon is a necessary proviso for a scientist. In addition, it is also important to endeavour to solve general and humanistic questions. There is a Hungarian expression “szakbarbár” (in German “Fachidiot”), this is a specialist having a tunnel vision (a highly trained barbarian). I am sure a PhD cannot have a tunnel vision, he/she cannot afford it.

Dear Robert,

Cheating is only a particular but a fact. I have not mentioned any geographical reference. The "interested ..." which offended you was only a reaction to Mario's comment.

Just an aside: I have sat on many PhD defense Committees during my career. Invariably, I remind the candidate that he/she is seeking the degree, Doctor of Philosophy. What light, then, does their work shed on our understanding of how we view the larger world? It usually throws the candidate for a spell, but they eventually recover and respond. They leave the room with a renewed appreciation of what is expected of a PhD.

Robert, you mention "publish or perish". Here in the US that is an outmoded phrase. Today we practice "supply-side academics". Candidates for promotion and tenure are judged more on how much they bring into the institution, rather than what they produce. (Sad, but very true!)

Dear Robert, Yes, publications still do matter, especially in fields that don't depend as much on external funding (e.g., the humanities). It's just that in my experience on promotion and tenure committees here in the US I have seen publications drop to second place behind the candidate's performance in attracting funding. Peace, Bob

Dear Robert Ulanowicz,

What you mentioned about external funding’s dominance versus other scientific performance like publications, it is a commonplace also in Hungary. Here there are many so called scientific “chinovnics”(penpusher or sleeve guard could be the original Russian meaning) whose knowledge is quite modest but harvest fundings owing to their political and other links and the work should be performed by the "supply-side academics". They, these “great men” have their own scribe scientists who prepare the publications of the boss.

Interesting discussion, in particular considering the more and more distorting effect of the publishing frenzy, which surely tends to slow down the overall scientific quality of publications or let it more and more influenced by some “tribe” belonging (expressed by the editorial board or the interconnections of research groups – see cross citations). I’m pretty sure that these aspects tend to get worse in the smaller or national level journal, even if in English. But, Its’ human being, baby. Still, I feel this is the best trade off, for the moment, to generally found out an overall smoothed (in spite of individual value) proxy of scientific reputation.

Dear Daniel,

You mentioned these - deception (how smart is this word) - aspects are human. What does human mean? I think this expresses the ambiguity between truth and actuality. Truth is how the world should be. Actuality is how the world is. For being human suggests that the actuality is preferred. However, this kind of adjustment to the world is only a very primitive and short term tactic. It cannot be a real aim or a strategy for a scientist who should be the magus of our epoch.

Oh, I shoud read this discussion before asking my question about co-authorship. If I understand correcttly, many of us just close their eyes before some kind of "PhD making machine" - candidates hardly qualify to pass "wider perception". Though, if candidate is already defending his work, isn't too late to prove him, what is etic in the science? This should have beed done earlier.

Academicians, which papers are written by scribe scientists? Jezus, what a disrespect of science and of themselves. To my knowledge, such phenomena are characteristic to former dictature countries, including Russia and East Europe, and - this is just my personal opinion - in some parts of Asia and Africa.

But obtaining grants could be a different song. If there is a leader of the team, he acts as iceboat, and he is responsible for success. If not, young scientists can wait long for the first financial support. Am I wrong here?

You definitely got the point. You CANT do both things: look for funding and do science. Its imposible.

On the other side flaky kids getting PhD's in countries known for their "in bubble" behavior (and obesity) its another song as you said. A PhD is not a PhD under the old school ethics. A Doctoral program is not producing leaders in their area. His/her dissertation will not be a new window in scientific knowledge but a requirement to make a career. Although this is accepted and defended by superior education Institutions all over the world, this fact degraded the validity of being a Philosophy Doctor. I definitely and personally are more comfortable with systems as the British, where soft funding is directed to train new scientists and every paper is getting something new. They also dont look much for number of papers but for number of cites when rank Institiutions and professionals.

Well, I am trying, at least trying, to do both. Am I suffessful, is another question. I have no high ambitions for science, thus, have some spare time for search of funding.

As for PhD, I fully agree with you - it is devalvated, it is just shame in many cases. But who cares....

Linas,

I propose you to read all the contrbutions and think a bit. Please, consider not only the answers you think they favour your point. One more thing: "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Interesting ! Well i think a PhD now is a requirement to make a career as Dr. Mario said! but i think with standards made by some journals for publication acceptance, we still have hope.

Dear Zeiri,

I thought always that the requirement of a carrier is to become a businessman or -women. However, you may be right a businessman with a PhD must have more chance. I do not think that the standards of journals are really important but the service and attitude or “faith” of a scientist toward the necessities of humankind.

To me a PhD degree is a relic-word from how the “scientific knowledge” was built and nothing has to do with ethical choices, good or bad, that modern scientists take. Unfortunately, the institutionalization of the knowledge into what we call “Science of Something” brought also an undesired outcome, the nasty attitude of the community to access to a scientific reputation, financial support or to feed egocentric needs. Although, it is hard to fight against the status quo, integrity and strength are not enough.

Dear G. Sosa,

I am afraid each human manifestation has an ethical approach but some do not care for it or do not recognise it. However, this is quite a comfortable attitude and it is psychologically advantageous. What you have written about a nasty attitude is interesting. Could you explain it a bit deeper?

Today , PhD has become a necessity for furthering your career, getting recognition in academicia. There are incentives too. PhD is no longer a quest for knowledge, as it was actually meant to be. Of course, lot of quality work has been done, but as pointed out, it would be of more use, if it is linked with industry or commercial ventures.

Dear Professor András Bozsik, PhD is a benchmark which suggests that the PhD holder is good enough at research and to be appoint-able to a university post. Hence, PhD is highly advisable for a career as an academic and most of us earned the degree of PhD with this aim. PhD candidates are often motivated to pursue the PhD by scientific and humanistic curiosity; the desire to contribute to the academic community, service to others, or personal development.

Dear Jaya,

I do not know from which environment you have had your experiences. I am afraid mainly from your own country. Another possibility can be the direct cultural background which influences everybody. According to you for being a PhD is a profession like that of a trader or a bank assistant or a simple engineer who are unassuming servants of the capital. I am frightened of this vision. The task of science and that of its humble servant, the PhD is not the service of industry or trade. And I stress the aim of human existence is not to work on production of disputable goods.

Dear Afaq Ahmad,

You have summarised quite pragmatically the notion and aim of a PhD however, I am highly estimating your remarks “scientific and humanistic curiosity… service to others”. I would add that this is not only an ethical curiosity but a kind of obligatory mission for the human welfare. I agree with you the good expression must be PhD holder because most of people with a PhD degree are not PhDs only holder of a moribund and commercialised title.

PhD is a modification of the English-speaking world for the doctor title and honour of the classical (European) University. Obviously, in other parts of the world where the cultural heritage is other than this the approach of people must be different. I would like to know the opinion of such famous scientists and scholars as Avicenna (أبو علي الحسين بن عبد الله بن سينا) or Averroes (أبو الوليد محمد بن احمد بن رشد) on the aim of science.

Dear Professor András Bozsik, I like discussing the person like you. I am highly impressed the way you are expressing yourself. Your text above have added knowledge to me.

Dear Afaq Ahmad,

Many thanks for your reply. Please, do not call me professor. Officially I am an associate professor but this is only a title which was given by people who knew me less than you do. Frankly spoken I know a bit Arabic culture: I had many class mates in the time I was a student and what is really important I have had a very good friend from Sudan with whom I shared a room for 4 years at our student hostel. I have even learned a bit Arabic and we sang together beautiful songs from Sudan. I am glad you have nice opinion about me.

Dear Andráz,

In regard to your question, I must say as a popular song in here says “la moral es cuestión de geografía” (the moral is a thing of geographic matter”. However, the globalization of the economy brings attached the globalization of western culture also. We are losing “culture-diversity” also. Anyway …

What by “nasty attitude” I refer to in my previous comment, it is the same thing as you mention in your original question “… some influential scholars requested (commanded) potential contributors … They make a deal and became co-authors of the other articles, thus every author has 15 articles a year”. Here in Mexico happens the same situation. After the government created the Sistema Nacional de Investigadores (SNI), the National System of Researchers, an institution that evaluates the scientific or technical production of applicants and pay an economical remuneration according to the level in which the applicant was ranked, the number of paper per year published by a single researcher increased substantially, from a couple per year to 10 or 15!!. This situation is the result of a convenient deal between colleagues to access to an extra wage. This is not the end of the story; ones into the SNI system, the members also have additional privileges, such as the right of submitting research proposals, earn extra money from their institutions that also have internal benefits for “outstanding“ researchers, and so on. The chain of corruption is long.

In the other hand, decent scientists that do not play the game cannot compete against unethical colleagues. As a consequence, it is hard for them get into the SNI system and therefore economical funding is limited and students are not willing to join the group because money for grants is not available, etc.

Dear G. Sosa,

Thanks for your reply. I am afraid this "nasty attitude" must be a frequent one but many scientists do not want or dare not to mention it. I highly evaluate your openness in this question. Unfortunately, similar phenomenon can be found also in my country. I am afraid that human weakness (lack of intelligence, creativity, diligence) form the basis of these unjust relationships which is hybridized with an unquenchable desire for money and reputation.

Dear George,

Thanks for your contribution. Yes, the professional importance of PhD has been remained. What I thought as a deficiency, is the lack of former philosophical and cultural standards.   

Dear George,

Thanks for your contribution. Yes, the professional importance of PhD has been remained. What I thought as a deficiency, is the lack of former philosophical and cultural standards.   

Andras.... not really, except for the academia (that in  my experience and except for the British system do have a HUGE problem regarding generational gap).

Heres an example from a job announcement:

Education Required:

- PhD in Bioinformatics or

related field with 2 years relevant experience or a Bachelor's Degree or

Masters with 7 years’ relevant experience.

Dear Mario,

Yes, it depends on the urgency of the job to be fulfilled. However, in case of university careers as you put it, the PhD degree is obligatory for senior jobs.

I want to begin my discussion with a phrase by a poet-philosopher Rumi: even if you can not contain the sea, you can taste it at least! I am a biologist, a PhD candidate, and I am working on a narrow view of botany: I am appointed to revise a plant genus. But even a tiny hole on the wall of a darkroom is enough to see the light of truth, isn't it? I have learned that any thing in the world is interconnected to other things, I have experienced the gradual changes between a state to another state. I have touched the delicacy of life, the glory of diversity, the importance of even a "useless" grass in our world. I have studied how things evolve in time, how the species change their traits when they grow in different ecological contexts, how they compete to have their right place in a niche... I tried to lure myself that there are true boundaries between things and I failed. I witnessed how a chain of events connect me, as a temporary being, to the whole universe. I am as I am, a Dasein, who try to understand the world around by that tiny whole in my wall of ignorance and expand that hole to a door to overcome my destiny. Yes, at leat for my, PhD could be still PhD because it can broaden my thoughts and point of view.  lets end  all of this with another poem: I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my Soul!    

Dear Ehsan,

Thanks for your contribution.

The poet may be right: “I am the master of my fate, I am the captain of my Soul!” However, this cannot mean that the general level of the PhD degrees approaches universality especially in humanities and culture.   

Dear Andras

I always spend the entire of my first teaching hour to note my students, and emphasis, that any complete dialogue, article or speech must have the three Aristotelian elements of speech: logos, pathos and ethos. Science provides the first (alongside the logic), for the remaining items I think we should rely on art and philosophy.

There is a long-lasting conflict between techne and poiesis, about how to do and what to do (or why to do). I never underestimated the need for technical progress but I always tried to look back and forward to seek a meaning in my attitudes. It is only by the poiesis that a human could reach his/her true being. I think PhD could help the people to concentrate on their desired projects and develop their point of view by working on a certain subject, but it is their own decision to widen their mind and seek a better landscape to look at the world outside. By reviewing the allegory of the cave, I think that science could loose the severity of our chains and make us a bit modest and self-aware, but the philosophy is the final tool to break the chains of our ignorance.

Dear All,

The most important attribute even the principle of a university is the freedom and scientific independence. Politically influenced teaching institutions are not able to produce successful PhD holders. So, please read the following Science article:  http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6338/563.full

Good question and Informative answers thank you all

Dear Haitham,

Thanks for your words.