A philosophy degree can be useful in a variety of ways. It can help you to develop critical thinking skills, learn how to write effectively and gain a deeper understanding of the world around you. These skills can be valuable in many different careers, including law, business, and government.
Here are some specific ways that a philosophy degree can be useful:
- Critical thinking: Philosophy teaches you how to think critically about issues and arguments. This is a valuable skill in any career, but it is especially important in fields where you need to make decisions based on evidence and reason.
- Writing: Philosophy requires you to write clearly and concisely. This is a valuable skill in any career, but it is especially important in fields where you need to communicate your ideas to others.
- Understanding the world: Philosophy helps you to understand the world around you by teaching you about different cultures, religions, and philosophies. This can be a valuable skill in any career, but it is especially important in fields where you need to interact with people from different backgrounds.
In addition to these specific benefits, a philosophy degree can also help you to develop a number of other skills that are valuable in the workplace, such as:
- Problem-solving: Philosophy teaches you how to identify and solve problems. This is a valuable skill in any career, but it is especially important in fields where you need to come up with creative solutions to complex problems.
- Communication: Philosophy teaches you how to communicate effectively, both orally and in writing. This is a valuable skill in any career, but it is especially important in fields where you need to persuade others to your point of view.
- Leadership: Philosophy teaches you how to think critically and make decisions. These are valuable skills for leaders in any field.
Debra AI Prediction
Post Argument Now Debate Details +
Arguments
Any challenging program is going to force you to think critically, develop writing and other communication skills. In this respect there is no difference between an electric engineering degree from the MIT and a philosophy degree from Oxford. What does differ is the specific knowledge and skills that the graduate acquires. Unless the graduate is planning to dedicate his life to studying and developing philosophy, what specifically the philosophy courses and projects he has to complete during the program put on the table that other programs do not?
If we were to build a hierarchy of degrees in terms of their overall impact on one's thinking, I would put the math degree at the very top. Mathematics teaches you to think logically and precisely, in the way no other discipline does, and a strong math program will have your mind tortured, broken down and put together multiple times, as a harsh physical training would do your body. You will develop ways of thinking that are applicable in every field, including philosophy.
The reverse is not true: completing a program in philosophy will not make you noticeably better at grasping mathematical concepts. Who do you think will do better: a Bachelor's in math taking a Master's program in philosophy, or a Bachelor's in philosophy taking a Master's program in math?
In this hierarchy, the lower you go, the less rigorous disciplines become. Below mathematics is applied statistics and computer science; below those is physics; then chemistry and biology... Philosophy will be somewhere in the middle, at best, with all of its fuzziness. It is still far better for your intellectual development than something like sociology, but given lack of direct marketability of the skills acquired, I would only study philosophy seriously at a university if I was planning a career in this field.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
@MayCaesar said: I would only study philosophy seriously at a university if I was planning a career in this field.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
These are all oversaturated fields of work where people without degrees can even get jobs.
Some philosophy majors are barely able to get a salary of 30,000USD after graduation while others get 120,000USD. It's a risky field.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
I also fail to see how the tasks outlined in these bullet points are done better by philosophers than other specialists. Say, in research I am much more interested in what a researcher with 30 years of experience has to say on the topic, than a philosopher. Someone developing a novel sorting algorithm would have little use for a philosopher.
Now, allegedly, philosophers are supposed to help researchers understand what things are worth developing in the first place. Is it better to develop an algorithm doing a narrow set of tasks faster than anything existing at the moment, or is development of a more general theory allowing others in the future to spawn such algorithms like chocolate pies more prudent? Partially such questions are answered by understanding the state of the research field, and partially by more general ethical, moral and otherwise value considerations.
A good philosopher's work is valuable, but its payoff is uncertain and an extremely long shot. It sometimes takes many centuries for a philosophical idea to be assimilated into the culture, or even into a small segment of the culture. There is a reason a company like Google or Tesla does not offer the position called "philosopher". I am also not aware of any company whatsoever hiring a philosopher for any reason other than general staff education.
I have long argued that there should not be "philosophers"; instead, there should be accomplished experts in multiple fields, with knowledge and some experience in many fields, drawing novel insights from all the baggage they have accumulated over the years. Someone who has been designing bridges for 50 years is likely to understand all the ethical, moral and other meta-considerations of engineering far better, than someone who has been reading "philosophers of science" for 50 years. People naturally become philosophers as they live, if they put a lot of intellectual effort routinely and learn about the world around them, if they wrestle with real world problems and, through trial and error, find the hard truths of this world. I do not see how one can become a good philosopher by sitting in an ivory tower and fantasizing.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
Because Jesus said that it does no man no good to put thought to matters and that makes a lot of sents. For example what would happen if Kernel Sanders just philosophized over making KFC and thinking about all the secret herbs and spices all day. No instead he went our and actually did it and if he constantly thought about all the ins and outs he would never have got to make KFC at all.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
That pyramid makes no sense whatsoever. It is absolutely ludicrous to say that randomized control trials represent a higher "quality" of evidence than cohort studies: they are both inherent part of the general research workflow in biology. As for expert opinion, it is not evidence at all, hence the quality of the evidence is undefined.
Rather than pulling out random diagrams from random websites (which appears to be your general research workflow), you have to actually spend some time and concentrated effort understanding how the research in the field is conducted and why.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
That is not what a cohort study is at all. A cohort study is a study in which the predictor variables of interest are preset, while in a randomized control trial they are drawn from a (potentially unknown) distribution. In a cohort study we say, "Here is a group of objects having property A, and there is a group not having it; let us see what differences result from that". In a randomized control trial we say, "Here is a group of objects randomly drawn from distribution X, and there is another group randomly drawn from distribution X; let us see if application of property A to the former group leads to different results than application of it to the latter group".
These are completely different approaches with different goals in mind. For instance, randomized control trials are frequently used to validate existing theories, while using cohort studies for that purpose makes little sense unless the cohorts in question happen to be balanced with respect to the overall distribution (in which case there is no difference between a cohort study and a randomized control trial); on the other hand, a cohort study is very useful when we are interested in the properties of particular members of a relatively small set of objects, while a randomized control trial would defeat the whole purpose of the study.
These are not particularly hard things to understand if you just try to really think about what these methods are, rather than blindly parroting something some blogger with a degree in nursing or sociology somewhere wrote.
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra
  Considerate: 100%  
  Substantial: 100%  
  Sentiment: Negative  
  Avg. Grade Level:   
  Sources:   
  Relevant (Beta): 100%  
  Learn More About Debra