Mentioning Phil phD's

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
You don't have to have a philosophy degree to be influenced by higher level philosophy. David is a very educated man (and did liberal arts in college). All social sciences is influenced by philosophy.

Why is it that no one wants to stick with what's being debated?

I'm talking about the philosophy departments in schools.

No one has at all given me any kind of evidence of what that department has done.

We've now gotten to the point where we're citing anyone who made a funny show in the past 15 years who has a liberal arts background for why philosophy is useful.

100 years ago the university system wasn't the same as it was 200 years ago. What is your point?

The point is, the current philosophy department in modern universities isn't doing anything but running around in circles. No one has proved otherwise, they keep trying to change the subject for some reason.

On the contrary, Wittgenstein came within the last 50 years. Postmodernism, Fukiyama's 'The End of History' hypo, etc.

Whoa-whatnow?
You can't just spew out buzznames/words, you need to tell me what they do for us...

Because we understand how important philosophy is to our fields (such as economics, history, political science, etc.).

Philosophy, in the sense you've used it, is nothing more than ideas. That doesn't need its own department.

You've not yet cited some guy who majored in philosophy that's done something for society in the past 50 years. Closest is some liberal arts guy...

The question remains WHY does Astronomy matter, after all it gives us no benefits in the present, but it MAY in the future.

Because the more we understand about where we came from (age of universe, etc.), the more we understand about how we got here.

We don't need philosophers who keep thinking up contradictory hypotheses for that, you see.

Philosophers exist to fill a void not filled by science. That void is filling up, which is why its usefulness is on its last legs as a field in university.

Philosophers in unversities today may come up with a new politics in the future.

Just how many new politics can we have?? You don't need to be a philosophy major to think up political systems...come on Imran...

Why is one potential futuristic endevor favored over another? Is it because of your science background and inherant bias against anything dealing with 'social sciences'.

No, it's because one endeavor has factual basis, and the other is just whatever somebody is thinking at the time.

Why don't all these philosophers go get a job as a talkshow host like all the other people with ideas, hmm?

NYE:

So, public safety is something worth spending money on, but enlightenment is not? Is not an educated citizenry very important for the safety of a nation?

So you maintain the only way to enlightenment is to study philosophy in university?

And I don't think an educated citizen in philosophy is important at all to the safety of the nation, actually.

[notyoueither]

No, Asher. Education in Philosophy for everyone is not required, but some would be nice.

It might be noted by you that people with significantly more life experience than you think a classical liberal education is a very good thing for citizens to have.

[Asher]

People say that, but why?

I mean, you've got a history degree, right? What do you do? Build computers?

How much Canadian taxpayer money went into funding that history degree, and what has it given back?

[notyoueither]

A lot, Asher.

I am a wiser person. I am a better citizen, because I am more aware than just having listened to the latest talk radio show.

I was trained to think critically, and to come to my own conclusions. I can contribute to current discussions in a positive way, more positive than if I had not had that education.

As for what it has given back, the stats say that the average holder of a degree will pay far more taxes than those who do not. I would say that most any graduate of a Canadian University will more than pay his or her own way.

[Asher]

Those stats are skewed by the people who get degrees like engineering, law, etc. Sociology, philosophy, history, etc. degrees bring that statistic quite a bit down.

[notyoueither]

Actually Asher, they are also skewed by people like me who can consider retiring before I am 40.

No science degree required.

[Asher]

Of course not, especially when you're a successful entrepreneur (which I assume you are?).

Your odds are just far higher of skewing the average with a science degree rather than arts.

[CyberGnu]

lot, Asher.

I am a wiser person. I am a better citizen, because I am more aware than just having listened to the latest talk radio show.

I was trained to think critically, and to come to my own conclusions. I can contribute to current discussions in a positive way, more positive than if I had not had that education.

As for what it has given back, the stats say that the average holder of a degree will pay far more taxes than those who do not. I would say that most any graduate of a Canadian University will more than pay his or her own way.

Ah, but notyou, would not those same things be true if you had gotten a degree in, say, engineering?

I should add that my position is less extreme than Ashers, though. I firmly believe that history is a valid subject, and should be taught and funded. Hey, if the average american knew more history (apart from the Civil War), the US would be a better society than it is today.

[notyoueither]

Not entirely.

Many people holding degrees in the humanities go on to hold very well paying jobs. BA's are valued in some areas more than other degrees, BS's in others. From a BA vs BS point of view, I would not give the Sciences any benefit.

They are both pieces of paper. Neither really qualifies one to any sort of brain surgery. You have to go further to get the academic pay days.

[Asher]

CyberGnu: I've said that I understand history can be useful already, which is why I'm not protesting it being in university.

Philosophy on the other hand...

[Asher]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Not entirely.

Many people holding degrees in the humanities go on to hold very well paying jobs. BA's are valued in some areas more than other degrees, BS's in others. From a BA vs BS point of view, I would not give the Sciences any benefit.

They are both pieces of paper. Neither really qualifies one to any sort of brain surgery. You have to go further to get the academic pay days.

Well, all of the statistics I've received from faculties on "average salaries after graduation" in the long-term and short-term would disagree that Sciences don't have any benefit in terms of pay.

And for anecdotal evidence, when I worked at a Superstore Bakery I worked with somebody with a BA in Psychology.

[CyberGnu]

Asher, exactly

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by CyberGnu


Ah, but notyou, would not those same things be true if you had gotten a degree in, say, engineering?

Sure. I would say, Hey! Look at the benefit of being an engineer. I would not be talking about exactly the same benefits as a Humanities student would be talking, of course.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Asher

Well, all of the statistics I've received from faculties on "average salaries after graduation" in the long-term and short-term would disagree that Sciences don't have any benefit in terms of pay.

And for anecdotal evidence, when I worked at a Superstore Bakery I worked with somebody with a BA in Psychology.

And there are many bus drivers with BS's. So?

[CyberGnu]

When it comes to making the big bucks:

Few people get rich doing science/engineering. But almost everyone in the field does very well. With a PhD in the field you are pretty much guaranteed a comfortable life in the upper middle class.

With a liberal arts degree, you can do very well, but you are also very very likely not to.

Makes sense?