mink

Writers need to use definitions in their work. Today's texts move across international boundaries like never before. It is just too risky for writers to assume that all their words will be understood in the same way across the world. For instance, I came across a theme-issue by the Economist last week, which focused on Iran. Three articles were in the June 22-28, 2013 issue: Persian Power: Can Iran be stopped? Iran's nuclear programme: Breakout beckons Iran's new president: Will he make a difference?  Among these articles, there are many many terms that are deserving of definition. They are deserving of definition because their use across so many writers and so many "brands" has add too many variations to the standard definition. This calls for a discussion on the various definitions in an effort to sensitize the reader on how terms should be understood in respective articles. Here are a few examples of terms that I think are deserving of definition...

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...