1231
do what you love (mander.xyz)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/science_memes@mander.xyz
112 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 30 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (16 children)

ironically philosophy majors perform better on graduate school entrance exams like the LSAT and GREs than most other majors, and philosophy graduates tend to be more successful and be better earners than other majors, notably than business major graduates

arugably, philosophy is one of the better majors in terms of outcomes

https://philosophy.unc.edu/undergraduate/the-major/why-major-in-philosophy/

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 34 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

    This is PURE speculation, but I feel like this could be caused by the only people who feel comfortable getting a philosophy degree being wealthy connected people. I know a lot of people from my high school that have stereotypical "be poor forever" degrees and are doing great - but if you knew them in high school, you'd know that they had millionaire parents. All the poor kids went for safer degrees because they knew they'd need money.

    To be clear: I love philosophy and think it is very valuable. But sadly it seems like something that only privileged people or the very passionate take a risk on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 1 year ago*

    I didn't want to say it, but I do think this is a possibility - people like Pete Buttigieg were philosophy majors. However, it's probably a bit of both - being wealthy and connected probably still makes up a minority of philosophy majors, and yet they still outperform on graduate entrance exams generally.

    You might be interested in reading The Management Myth by Matthew Stewart for a non-wealthy philosophy major's perspective on business. :-)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (11 children)

    Don't ya think this might be a bit bias? They have a vested interest to sell you a philosophy degree.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 14 points 1 year ago (9 children)

    I used my philosophy of science classwork all the time in my engineering career.

    What constitutes proof? What kinds of questions can you answer with data? When do we consider a pattern of behavior to represent the existence of some entity?

    Being able to think about these kinds of questions with clarity is really helpful in diagnosing problems in large systems.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    What constitutes proof? What kinds of questions can you answer with data? When do we consider a pattern of behavior to represent the existence of some entity?

    Any recommended reading for someone who's never formally studied philosophy?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

    Karl Popper, "The Logic of Scientific Discovery" is a seminal work in the modern philosophy of science. It proposes to solve the problem of induction, and his proposal of falsifiability is, to my knowledge, the most popular philosophical framework for modern scientific practice. I'd be interested in what the above commenter has to say about Popper, though, as I am not well-read outside of his work, as my focus is on the history of science.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

    I'm not sure recommending Popper to someone who has never studied philosophy, and who is reading on their own, is a good idea ... I would probably start with a small intro to philosophy book like Blackburn's Think and then try to find lectures or resources that help teach Popper, rather than just diving into source material with no guidance.

    Popper is important, but I don't think he is commonly seen to have solved the problem of induction ... he made an attempt, but that's a different story.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago* (1 child)

    Excellent points! And yes, that's why I said he proposed that he solved the problem of induction.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    sorry, I conflated what you said about falsifiability being the most popular framework with thinking he did solve the problem of induction, lol - I had just woken up when I responded to you, my apologies 😅

    Popper is great, also recommend Hilary Putnam's "The 'Corroboration' of Theories" on Popper. I admittedly adore Putnam, but it's a nice overview of Popper's view of induction and its problems.

    Thomas Kuhn (The Structure of Scientific Revolutions) and his idea of paradigm shifts is also worth mentioning here, and Kuhn comes up in Putnam's chapter, too.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago

    Popper is considered an important historical contributor by the field, in the same way that Jacob Lister might be in surgery. Groundbreaking but their methods have been replaced.

    Jeffrey Kaplan is the best current philosophy lecturer on YouTube imo. He focuses more on theories of consciousness but covers epistemology too. Bryan Magee did a fantastic interview series called The Great Philosophers that's on YouTube.

    I would actually start with sociology of science if you want the most interesting contemporary stuff. Harry Collins is fantastic, check out his recent book on LIGO. Steven Shapin's book on the Scientific Revolution is good.

    Bruno Latour is a love-him-or-hate-him figure in science studies (I love him). "Laboratory Life" and "Science in Action" are great reads imo.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent