• moody@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    ·
    4 months ago

    They’re not trying to destroy your thesis, they’re trying to make sure it’s complete and sccurate. In theory, the only person who knows the material is you, so they can’t just ask anyone else.

    I never really understood why they call it a defense. Nobody’s going in there trying to insult or fight it.

    • jupyter_rain@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      ->Enter Thesis defense. Scream “Your thesis sucks!”. You or your thesis now have to fight me

      Tbh this scenario sounds way better to me than asking detailed questions about methodology or the results. But somehow I want to keep my job.

      • restingboredface@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        That person went to a department that was WAY less toxic than mine was.

        That said, my committee was lovely and my thesis and dissertation were relatively low-stress compared to some of the horror stories I’ve heard.

    • candybrie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      How science often works is you try to disprove things, and if you can’t, you accept them as likely to be true. So, to show that the thesis is complete and accurate, they’re trying to find places where it’s incomplete or inaccurate. In the defense, your job is to defend against these attempts.

      • kwomp2@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        So trying to destroy it and making sure its accurate and complete turns out to be the same thing

  • webghost0101@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    4 months ago

    Unironically based.

    Scientific works should ideally stand on their own and present all the required information to understand its conclusions in a easy to comprehend for form.

    Requiring a human, who is more prone to emotional and subjective errors during live speech then during honest predetermined writing sessions is everything but ideal.

    However, a scientific work should be the most possible comprehendible to the target audience which may require multiple mixed forms including live discussion of subject matter.

    [scientific medium that allows people to learn and grow independently of other factors] > [scientific medium that aids learning and growth in combination with other factors] > [scientific medium that requires near full knowledge of the subject matter to understand (thats just art for smart people)]