3 ms·

Thanks for pointing this out. This is the reason why I would hire educated (Academic education that is) people over people who are more practical. When you hav

Thanks for pointing this out. This is the reason why I would hire educated (Academic education that is) people over people who are more practical. When you have had an academic education you also (should) learn to think critically about your sources, the way you reason and alternative strategies. The main difference I have noticed around me between people of applied sciences degrees and academic degrees (a difference that contrasted much more in my country) is that the former will accept any source; Wikipedia, any newspaper, some guy's blog, a comment on some thread from a conspiracy theorist. The latter, the academic, will (should) only use proper sources i.e. academic research or, in the case of less important things (like HN), at least some form of respectable medium. When reading up on important subjects, something that isn't researched and then published through reputable scientific journals, simply does not exist. Otherwise we'd waste time discussing whether we went to the moon, etc.

Swizec 14y ago
In other words, here's a link to a peer reviewed journal article about farting on airplanes: http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/abstract.php?id=5532 http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/abstract.php?id=5532 Or when a reputable mathematical journal accepted a nonsense paper generated by Mathgen: http://boingboing.net/2012/10/19/math-journal-accepts-computer.html http://boingboing.net/2012/10/19/math-journal-accepts-comput... Don't get me wrong, I have certainly noticed becoming more critical of sources in the 5 years of going through an academic university (despite not quite finishing), but even scientific papers can often be proven silly by just a quick look at some common sense. Also, wikipedia is a magnificent source on most topics. Very good overview/introductory material and a way to look for "proper" sources. I am also still of the firm opinion that wikipedia gets more peer review than the average peer reviewed paper.
- mosselman 14y ago
  There is a difference between silly and trustworthiness of course. But yes, not all academia is good or even worth while, but still is more (potentially) useful than some blog. This does not mean that it can't be true what someone is saying, but there is no reason to trust it. As for Wikipedia; yes I a agree. Wikipedia is great, I have donated several times to the organisation. That does not mean however that it is academically useful beyond the point of exploring a subject on a very high level. For day to day things there is nothing that can beat it. Apart from Stack Overflow for us programmers that is. The trustworthiness of opinions comes into play again with the last thing you say. It is like with Homeopathic medicine, as soon as it is scientifically proven to be true/working, it becomes 'real' medicine. Also, even if it were true, does 'more' peer review mean 'better' peer review. Also, with some subjects I would think that 'peer' is somewhat far fetched; conspiracy theorists are not the peers of astronomers.
LogicX 14y ago
You're trying to correlate level of education with moral development ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlbergs_stages_of_moral_development http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlbergs_stages_of_mo... oh noes! I linked to Wikipedia). I'd like to see your research that demonstrates there's a positive correlation between the two. It seems you're relating Pre-conventional to high school education, and Conventional to college education, when it would seem that your arguments related to the value of 'reputable scientific journals' would exclude you from post-conventional moral reasoning, as you're stuck at stage 4 of conventional reasoning with the logic of conforming to the authority of 'reputable scientific journals'.
- mosselman 14y ago
  Luckily I am in good company at stage 4. How nice of you to join me.

Swizec 14y ago

In other words, here's a link to a peer reviewed journal article about farting on airplanes: http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/abstract.php?id=5532 http://journal.nzma.org.nz/journal/abstract.php?id=5532 Or when a reputable mathematical journal accepted a nonsense paper generated by Mathgen: http://boingboing.net/2012/10/19/math-journal-accepts-computer.html http://boingboing.net/2012/10/19/math-journal-accepts-comput... Don't get me wrong, I have certainly noticed becoming more critical of sources in the 5 years of going through an academic university (despite not quite finishing), but even scientific papers can often be proven silly by just a quick look at some common sense. Also, wikipedia is a magnificent source on most topics. Very good overview/introductory material and a way to look for "proper" sources. I am also still of the firm opinion that wikipedia gets more peer review than the average peer reviewed paper.

mosselman 14y ago
There is a difference between silly and trustworthiness of course. But yes, not all academia is good or even worth while, but still is more (potentially) useful than some blog. This does not mean that it can't be true what someone is saying, but there is no reason to trust it. As for Wikipedia; yes I a agree. Wikipedia is great, I have donated several times to the organisation. That does not mean however that it is academically useful beyond the point of exploring a subject on a very high level. For day to day things there is nothing that can beat it. Apart from Stack Overflow for us programmers that is. The trustworthiness of opinions comes into play again with the last thing you say. It is like with Homeopathic medicine, as soon as it is scientifically proven to be true/working, it becomes 'real' medicine. Also, even if it were true, does 'more' peer review mean 'better' peer review. Also, with some subjects I would think that 'peer' is somewhat far fetched; conspiracy theorists are not the peers of astronomers.

LogicX 14y ago

You're trying to correlate level of education with moral development ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlbergs_stages_of_moral_development http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlbergs_stages_of_mo... oh noes! I linked to Wikipedia). I'd like to see your research that demonstrates there's a positive correlation between the two. It seems you're relating Pre-conventional to high school education, and Conventional to college education, when it would seem that your arguments related to the value of 'reputable scientific journals' would exclude you from post-conventional moral reasoning, as you're stuck at stage 4 of conventional reasoning with the logic of conforming to the authority of 'reputable scientific journals'.

mosselman 14y ago
Luckily I am in good company at stage 4. How nice of you to join me.