Tell us more about this MA work.
Ah, that reminds me of when someone showed up for an interview and on his resume put that he had a "MA in Computer Science" from my alma mater. Needless to say, I had good fun with that interview ...
PhD research is much more difficult than for a Masters, or should be. This from someone who has neither but who has a wife who told me after she completed her MSc that if she ever decided to do a PhD I had to stop her, using whatever persuasion or force that's necessary.
It's 'arder. The length of time it takes reflects that.
A PhD shouldn't have different research than a masters. I'm telling you this as someone who has 15+ years in academia, including research, graduate school, medical school, etc.
The research done is always based on the advisor's research. You can't magically change his research based on whether or not you are doing a masters or PhD. It will be the same type of research.
That being said, the difficult part of a PhD compared to a masters is the amount of research needed, not the level of arduous research.
A PhD requires more publications, more data collected, and more time.
This is all in hard sciences.
I do not know about other majors like english, history, or subjects like that.
More evidence that you do not have the experience you claim.
(This criticism is from someone who has a PhD, publications, and more than 30 years of university teaching.)
I can add to what I wrote, though. It's only anecdotal but I believe it's correct. When my son was doing his PhD in Condensed Matter Physics, he struggled quite a lot. It took him six months, he told me, just to write down the initial equation which had to be solved. This even though he had the reputation of being one of the two best mathematicians ar St Andrews University and despite his Masters being in maths and not physics.
He told me that in practice, even the PhD students were streamed or segregated and the less able ones would get a less problematic piece of research; the aim being to test students to near their limits. His project was to represent magnetism in terms of fermionic spins. He says that he discovered a new state of matter through the equations he devised but it was extremely difficult. He says that the equation could also be written back to front ... that is, constants as variables and vice versa, but that the maths necessary to solve it that way round hasn't been devised yet. The proof isn't complete without that being done and then his equations used to predict metallic alloys for practical testing.
It certainly seems to me that that isn't Masters level. I did some original research as my own dissertation for my BA in philosophy and that was to a slightly less rigorous standard than Masters would require. No less accurate but the writing up didn't need to be so exact.
That is absolutely master level physics. I had advanced quantum chemistry colleagues and they had similar struggles to what you're describing.
Haha oh dear. 
A PhD requires more publications, more data collected, and more time.>>
My son only published about 1 or 2 things all told, in his PhD work, not including the thesis itself. Maybe you're trying to describe post-doctoral stuff? I'm glad I didn't attempt to get anything beyond the basic BA in philosophy and it's probably talent that leads to greater things, rather than mastery of what has gone before. After all, in hard sciences, the emphasis is on building on what went before. In phisosophy, if I wished to make a name for myself it would involve replacing what went before.
Tell us more about this MA work.
Ah, that reminds me of when someone showed up for an interview and on his resume put that he had a "MA in Computer Science" from my alma mater. Needless to say, I had good fun with that interview ...
That would have been a very pleasant coincidence for you and not so relaxing for the applicant.
"Occam's razor is only relevant if the two theories predict identical results..."
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/occams-razor/495332/
For Hans to be cheating we have to intellectually invent several things: A device that can avoid detection, an accomplice, a way to communicate the current board position, a way to cheat that can outsmart algorithms reviewing his OTB games for engine moves. I think The OP's point is that by the time you construct that scenario you've added illogical complexity to solve the problem.
Carlsen offered a plausible (and relatively simple) way for a grandmaster to cheat at chess:
They simply need to be alerted when there is a winning opportunity on the board. No additional information, or moves, need to be given.
Just something as simple as a single vibration, on a critical move, is all that's needed.
After that, it's up to the grandmaster to use this extra information, to the best of his ability.
This method of cheating would almost certainly avoid detection, via game analysis.
Combine this with the statements of top players like Caruana, who suggested that the anti-cheating measures in place, before this whole controversy, were inadequate to catch anything sophisticated.
Also combine this with Niemann's repeated history of cheating in prize-money chess tournaments.
And combine that with Niemann's sudden Elo rise (unprecedented in history).
It seems well within reason to conclude that Niemann might have been dabbling in such a system, before security tightened.
The conclusion might prove incorrect, but it's certainly not as outlandish as some make it seem ...
For Hans to be cheating we have to intellectually invent several things: A device that can avoid detection, an accomplice, a way to communicate the current board position, a way to cheat that can outsmart algorithms reviewing his OTB games for engine moves. I think The OP's point is that by the time you construct that scenario you've added illogical complexity to solve the problem.
Carlsen offered a plausible (and relatively simple) way for a grandmaster to cheat at chess:
They simply need to be alerted when there is a winning opportunity on the board. No additional information, or moves, need to be given.
Just something as simple as a single vibration, on a critical move, is all that's needed.
After that, it's up to the grandmaster to use this extra information, to the best of his ability.
This method of cheating would almost certainly avoid detection, via game analysis.
Combine this with the statements of top players like Caruana, who suggested that the anti-cheating measures in place, before this whole controversy, were inadequate to catch anything sophisticated.
Also combine this with Niemann's repeated history of cheating in prize-money chess tournaments.
And combine that with Niemann's sudden Elo rise (unprecedented in history).
It seems well within reason to conclude that Niemann might have been dabbling in such a system, before security tightened.
The conclusion might prove incorrect, but it's certainly not as outlandish as some make it seem ...
Now that is interesting....
For a PhD in any field, the general expectation is that you have become a producer of knowledge. This can occur at the master's level, but generally the focus is on mastery of the skills that are the foundation for the production of knowledge.
There are exceptions even at the PhD level. In some cases, the PhD will be granted to someone who shows only mastery of basic research and data analysis skills. This example of a cookie-cutter application of a theory to a problem it clearly will not fit is a case in point: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/arv_dissertations/523/
Nothing is going to change the fact that master and PhD students continue the same research of their advisor, where the main difference is the length of the program and the fact you need more results for a PhD.
Literally if I wanted a PhD, I would have used the exact same data from my Masters, but would just spend a couple more years doing it.
Tell us more about this MA work.
MS, not MA.
MS means thesis was also done.
Spent time optimizing synthetic organic chemistry reactions. Methods such as the reaction, work-up, purification, and using HMR to evaluate the compounds. It's protecting group chemistry. The term "optimization" in chemistry is synonymous with the laymen's terms for "inventing".
My advisor optimized a reaction under mild conditions in which he was able to transfer a certain chemical groups to alcohols, carboxylic acids, etc.
This transferred was optimized to show yield of 99% for the starting product, and then 90-99% for most products tested, showing that millions of compounds could have their group transferred.
Since the original protecting groups was successfully transferred in publishable yields (i.e you really need 85%+ for publications), my area of chemistry was to optimization other groups he wanted to transfer another structure that was similar.
Organic chemistry has many variables. This includes the time of reaction, catalyst of reaction, solvent of reaction, work-up techniques, purification methods, and analysis via HMNR, CMNR, IR spec, mass spec. etc.
As I said before, your research is generally based on the your advisor's research except your reaction goals are different and now you are taking it to the next step to optimize a reaction.
"Occam's razor is only relevant if the two theories predict identical results..."
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/occams-razor/495332/
That's a tad dumbed down, though, really. After all, what is being emphasised is not that a less complex hypothesis is preferential to a more complex one. It's to do with the number of unknowns, where "unknowns" can be thought of as "sub-hypotheses" which themselves are no longer uncertain but which may literally have been invented to explain the results. It really is best not to invent too many things at once.
For instance, there was once a theoretical scientist, called Einstein, who believed in determinism. He was sure that randomness didn't exist and wished to discredit the New Physics of Bohr, Heisenberg et al. When a crackpot priest invented the Big Bang theory, he was at first sceptical but then seized upon it when he realised that if he could get people to believe it, they mightn't believe in quantum physics. Einstein liked things to be just so and readily understandable to his mighty brain.
So we have nothing which, for no reason at all, is rent apart by a mighty explosion, giving existence to everything, all at once, although inconveniently positioned all at once in the same space and time. So everything proceeded to expand and, very conveniently, it was forgotten that the expansion is accelerating, as predicted by steady state theorists. Also that steady state theorists predicted dark matter and, more tenuously, dark energy.
Because of this great scientist, other scientists have made little progress in theoretical cosmology since his ideas became "received knowledge", which was approximately in the mid 60s. Since that time, there has been no cosmologist who deserves to be thought of as "great".
An example of bad thinking that has wasted millions of man-hours, which could have been knocked on the head by Occam's Hammer?
A PhD requires more publications, more data collected, and more time.>>
My son only published about 1 or 2 things all told, in his PhD work, not including the thesis itself. Maybe you're trying to describe post-doctoral stuff? I'm glad I didn't attempt to get anything beyond the basic BA in philosophy and it's probably talent that leads to greater things, rather than mastery of what has gone before. After all, in hard sciences, the emphasis is on building on what went before. In phisosophy, if I wished to make a name for myself it would involve replacing what went before.
You're not from the USA, so there could be some differences.
I'm not sure on the total expectations of a physics PhD, but I did know some PhD chemists there when I was in chemistry graduate school. It seemed fairly similar.
Although organic chemistry specifically took a massive amount of time in lab and took all of our free time while it did appear more quantum based chemists and physicists got to do a lot of work in more leisure areas.
Sounds legit. You still need to work on your understanding of Occam’s Razor. Maybe rely on something a little better than Wikipedia.
A PhD requires more publications, more data collected, and more time.>>
My son only published about 1 or 2 things all told, in his PhD work, not including the thesis itself. Maybe you're trying to describe post-doctoral stuff? I'm glad I didn't attempt to get anything beyond the basic BA in philosophy and it's probably talent that leads to greater things, rather than mastery of what has gone before. After all, in hard sciences, the emphasis is on building on what went before. In phisosophy, if I wished to make a name for myself it would involve replacing what went before.
You're not from the USA, so there could be some differences.
I'm not sure on the total expectations of a physics PhD, but I did know some PhD chemists there when I was in chemistry graduate school. It seemed fairly similar.
Although organic chemistry specifically took a massive amount of time in lab and took all of our free time while it did appear more quantum based chemists and physicists got to do a lot of work in more leisure areas.
Could be, although I've heard that it's more difficult to get a PhD in the USA, provided of course that it's at a legitimate academic establishment. Not sure if that's true but it does seem to take longer in the USA and there's no reason to think that in the USA you're less intelligent than elsewhere. My wife would dispute that but that's out of prejudice, although I love her.
Sounds legit. You still need to work on your understanding of Occam’s Razor. Maybe rely on something a little better than Wikipedia.
The entire point of bringing up Occam's Razor is the fact that it is often "the simplest explanation is often the most likely to be true".
What do you think is the most erroneous part of applying Occam's Razor to saying its unlikely Han's cheated OTB when there is no evidence to support the claim, nor statistical alarm bells according to Regan?
PhD research is much more difficult than for a Masters, or should be. This from someone who has neither but who has a wife who told me after she completed her MSc that if she ever decided to do a PhD I had to stop her, using whatever persuasion or force that's necessary.
It's 'arder. The length of time it takes reflects that.
A PhD shouldn't have different research than a masters. I'm telling you this as someone who has 15+ years in academia, including research, graduate school, medical school, etc.
The research done is always based on the advisor's research. You can't magically change his research based on whether or not you are doing a masters or PhD. It will be the same type of research.
That being said, the difficult part of a PhD compared to a masters is the amount of research needed, not the level of arduous research.
A PhD requires more publications, more data collected, and more time.
This is all in hard sciences.
I do not know about other majors like english, history, or subjects like that.
More evidence that you do not have the experience you claim.
(This criticism is from someone who has a PhD, publications, and more than 30 years of university teaching.)
Nothing you say will change the fact those are my credentials.
A master's in medicine? Or a PhD?
Masters in chemistry. Doctorate in medicine if that's what you consider physicians. Although Physicians often don't sayо
they have a doctorate, they usually say MD or DO.
Good use of Wikipedia.
Good use of 15+ years of academia.
A PhD requires more publications, more data collected, and more time.>>
My son only published about 1 or 2 things all told, in his PhD work, not including the thesis itself. Maybe you're trying to describe post-doctoral stuff? I'm glad I didn't attempt to get anything beyond the basic BA in philosophy and it's probably talent that leads to greater things, rather than mastery of what has gone before. After all, in hard sciences, the emphasis is on building on what went before. In phisosophy, if I wished to make a name for myself it would involve replacing what went before.
You're not from the USA, so there could be some differences.
I'm not sure on the total expectations of a physics PhD, but I did know some PhD chemists there when I was in chemistry graduate school. It seemed fairly similar.
Although organic chemistry specifically took a massive amount of time in lab and took all of our free time while it did appear more quantum based chemists and physicists got to do a lot of work in more leisure areas.
Could be, although I've heard that it's more difficult to get a PhD in the USA, provided of course that it's at a legitimate academic establishment. Not sure if that's true but it does seem to take longer in the USA and there's no reason to think that in the USA you're less intelligent than elsewhere. My wife would dispute that but that's out of prejudice, although I love her.
If I had to go back in time, perhaps I would have just got a retail job and worked on stock trading. The rewards for graduating chemistry graduate school or medical school aren't particularly that great for living a stress-free life.
For Hans to be cheating we have to intellectually invent several things: A device that can avoid detection, an accomplice, a way to communicate the current board position, a way to cheat that can outsmart algorithms reviewing his OTB games for engine moves. I think The OP's point is that by the time you construct that scenario you've added illogical complexity to solve the problem.
Carlsen offered a plausible (and relatively simple) way for a grandmaster to cheat at chess:
They simply need to be alerted when there is a winning opportunity on the board. No additional information, or moves, need to be given.
Just something as simple as a single vibration, on a critical move, is all that's needed.
After that, it's up to the grandmaster to use this extra information, to the best of his ability.
This method of cheating would almost certainly avoid detection, via game analysis.
Combine this with the statements of top players like Caruana, who suggested that the anti-cheating measures in place, before this whole controversy, were inadequate to catch anything sophisticated.
Also combine this with Niemann's repeated history of cheating in prize-money chess tournaments.
And combine that with Niemann's sudden Elo rise (unprecedented in history).
It seems well within reason to conclude that Niemann might have been dabbling in such a system, before security tightened.
The conclusion might prove incorrect, but it's certainly not as outlandish as some make it seem ...
Based on that theory any GM could be cheating OTB. And every previous fastest rise in chess would be a new record and thus unprecedented. But even for your theory to be true you still need all the additional components thus adding to the complexity of the theory to make it work.
What do you think is the most erroneous part of applying Occam's Razor to saying its unlikely Han's cheated OTB when there is no evidence to support the claim, nor statistical alarm bells according to Regan?
Grandmaster Ramirez (who was responsible for inviting Hans to compete in that now-famous tournament) suggested that a skilled cheater would be aware of cheat-detection methods (such as Regan's), and would intentionally play in a way that avoids statistical anomalies - therefore leaving "no trail" to be found.
That's part of what makes this controversy so long-lasting in the forums ... there are so many possible angles.
"Occam's razor is only relevant if the two theories predict identical results..."
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/occams-razor/495332/
Isn’t the result in this case Niemanns win? And the two theory’s are trying to explain that win.
"when you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras".
"When you see inhumanly good chess play, think computer assistance, not human intelligence."
Your reasoning is completely flawed I'm afraid. The opposite is true and that exactly why all these debates are going on. Because the simplest explanation for extraordinarily perfect play is...cheating.
For a PhD in any field, the general expectation is that you have become a producer of knowledge. This can occur at the master's level, but generally the focus is on mastery of the skills that are the foundation for the production of knowledge.
There are exceptions even at the PhD level. In some cases, the PhD will be granted to someone who shows only mastery of basic research and data analysis skills. This example of a cookie-cutter application of a theory to a problem it clearly will not fit is a case in point: https://tigerprints.clemson.edu/arv_dissertations/523/
Nothing is going to change the fact that master and PhD students continue the same research of their advisor, where the main difference is the length of the program and the fact you need more results for a PhD.
Literally if I wanted a PhD, I would have used the exact same data from my Masters, but would just spend a couple more years doing it.
Tell us more about this MA work.