mink

For several years now, I have noticed that systems of formal education globally appear skewed. Specifically, interests in "learning" do not seem to match interests in "managing education". Today I came across an article in the Economist from 2010 titled The disposable academic: Why doing a PhD is often a waste of time . It discusses the contention between academia and productive work particularly from the perspective of PhD programs. Here is one quote: There is an oversupply of PhDs. Although a doctorate is designed as training for a job in academia, the number of PhD positions is unrelated to the number of job openings. Meanwhile, business leaders complain about shortages of high-level skills, suggesting PhDs are not teaching the right things. The fiercest critics compare research doctorates to Ponzi or pyramid schemes. Either my eyes are opening up to global debates, or this debate is getting louder globally. Whatever the situation, it is encouraging to s

The scientific method ensures that the system of building knowledge respects what has been built already; what continues to prove existing theory is retained, what breaks it is further investigated. The further investigation aspect has to do with replicability. A scientific experiment should be able to be tested repeatedly, otherwise it is merely a one-off activity that cannot do much to established knowledge. But replicability is often taken for granted. Our experiments assume that our version of time is continuous, ever-lasting and indefinite. Can we help it? Even under the assumption that time is continuous, things change over time. Value increases or decreases based on prevailing circumstances. Does this change affect any part of the scientific method? There is a clause in proofs - "ceteris paribus" or "all other things being equal" - that is a slight fix for the assumption that time will not change value. But this clause is also the extra, unexciti