great post, thanks!

You may enjoy this TED talk:

As to your "laughing" friend, I also know some such people, they have in 
truth not understood what science is about: asking questions, being 
critical (especially self-critical!); science is a method, an algorithm 
for arriving at knowledge, never the current canon of knowledge (which 
will be an old hat in a decade).

People which laugh at everything that does not fit into their world-view 
are not scientific, just dogmatic. They believe in textbook knowledge 
from college times, which may be the snapshot of scientific modelling at 
a particular time, but, it's still not the _idea_ of science.


Kim Jones wrote:
> Let's keep it simple. Schools and universities (globally identifiable as 
> 'the education industry') have traditionally fulfilled the role of 
> fountains of knowledge. This is fine, up to the point where we realise 
> that we no longer need to attend these places if all we want is 
> knowledge (accumulated expertise, understanding of a field, the specific 
> technical low-down necessary to gain a foothold in a certain area.) 
> Increasingly the Internet fulfils this function in a direct and powerful 
> way. It also presents a lot of pratfalls as well - as Brent was very 
> hasty in pointing out, but then I would call 'using the Internet 
> responsibly' a skill that probably cannot be learnt easily from the 
> Internet. This is an example of what I mean when I say education should 
> now teach skills rather than knowledge. I am not talking either about 
> the vocational skills that many employers hotly desire from the 
> education sector although nobody could deny that those skills should be 
> taught as well. 
> Above all what needs to be taught is the skill of thinking. Not 
> compartmentalised, specialised, academic thinking, but OPERACY - how to 
> get a result in a real and changing world. Bruno has referred (in his 
> 'amoebas" dissertation) to the value of posing questions in a childlike 
> manner. Children have not yet submitted to "the brainwashing known as 
> academic specialisation". He has uttered a profound and above all, a 
> useful truth in mentioning this, IMO.
> Have you ever tried to stand upright on a carpet that somebody is 
> pulling along the floor from one end? Difficult. Ever learnt to ride a 
> surfboard? Similar skill. The world around you is changing fast and you 
> must strive to maintain some kind of relation to it that is useful. 
> My point is that education fails badly to teach this kind of skill. 
> Every banker, every businessman, every politician, every company boss, 
> every worker, everybody in fact is "flying by the seat of his pants" 
> right now but education remains smugly complacent about it's 
> self-serving tradition. Kids go to school and learn to memorise a bunch 
> of stuff, they sit for exams and in so doing mandate the school to set 
> those exams and teach the stuff in the first place. The more you think 
> about it the more circular it seems. It's not for nothing that we talk 
> often about the 'education bubble'. By this we mean that in a certain 
> sense, education is not the real world. The teacher puts something in 
> front of the student. The student reacts to this using the vocabulary of 
> knowledge taught up to that point. This means the teacher is always 
> ahead of the student which is what lends the teacher their air of 
> authority. In the 'real world' it isn't as simple as that. You have to 
> invent initiatives and use risk-taking strategies to get ahead, 
> increasingly we must do this on a daily basis now to even survive. There 
> is no school subject, for example, that teaches "economic survival 
> following job redundancy", yet millions of people are facing precisely 
> this dilemma right now. In a certain sense their education has taught 
> them little of real value.
> Don't forget about "the archway effect". This states that if a number of 
> brilliant people are sent under an archway, then it is highly likely 
> that from that archway will stream a number of brilliant people. You 
> have to be brilliant to get in to Harvard. They don't take in the class 
> 'dunce' in these institutions. The institution thus benefits more from 
> the quality of the students than the students benefit from the quality 
> of the institution.
> Because of the unavoidable tradition of historical continuity in 
> education - which grew up, after all in the church, the least likely 
> institution to welcome any form of new knowledge or innovation - 
> education is marked by all the drawbacks associated with an overweening 
> respect for 'historical continuity'. It is difficult to break with the 
> patterns of the past. Teaching, education - call it whatever you want, 
> was for a long time in the hands of ecclesiastical authorities who 
> founded the vast majority of our elite educational institutions (not ULB 
> - a good point in its favour) and so established the traditions of 
> education. I often harp on about the need to teach 'creative thinking' 
> in my posts. Note that by this I do NOT mean artistic thinking but 
> generative, innovative and risk-taking thinking generally. Critical 
> thinking was and still is of paramount importance in the ecclesiastical 
> world since it has proven the most effective weapon against heresy and 
> deviation and since that world consists of concept edifices that must 
> have internal consistency and validity if they are not to be overrun by 
> outside ideas that would cause them to appear relativistic and thus to 
> risk collapse. But all that is very far from the practical, messy world 
> in which people have to think (often with very inadequate data) in order 
> to solve problems and bring things about. Critical intelligence is very 
> valuable. Critical thinking is an essential part of thinking. But 
> critical thinking can never be the whole of thinking.
> The apostolic succession of educators in posts involving tenure and high 
> levels of job security mirrors the smugness with which the education 
> world holds its historical continuity in high esteem. It is highly 
> amusing for me to see a computer scientist and systems architect such as 
> Steve Wolfram innovating in such a way as to make these people seem less 
> and less relevant.  Wolfram has his detractors for sure, many people 
> think he is a bullshit artist, but he is also a risk-taking entrepreneur 
> who has little regard for the sanctity of education institutions to 
> claim some kind of monopoly in the knowledge game.
> Bruno speaks often of 'interdisciplinarity'. This is the need to escape 
> specialisation, rather than to embrace it. Increasingly, I see this as 
> the safe path for education in the future. We all know about the 
> professor of quantum mechanics who was so expert in his field, he could 
> not even work out how to buy sex in a brothel. I think they made a movie 
> about it starring Marlene Dietrich. It is also true that the people who 
> are the most likely to innovate in any field are not the hidebound ones, 
> the pedants and the experts who act like oracles of all truth and 
> wisdom. Anyone who claims to be an 'expert' at something is by 
> definition expert in the state of knowledge up to that point. The 
> expert's judgement is based on the past. The expert's judgement is based 
> on what IS rather than what CAN BE. The expert is always being asked for 
> expert opinions. The expert cannot risk his or her reputation. So the 
> expert does need to stay on the side of caution. Better to say that 
> something cannot be done, rather than to say that it can be done and to 
> be responsible for some mistake. Experts are the guardians of the past 
> and people expect them to be so. They are like priests of knowledge. A 
> so-called 'expert' in QM has been telling me for ages how stupid all of 
> you people are for imagining that MWI makes any sense. He laughs like a 
> drain when I describe to him Bruno's teleportation gedanken experiment. 
> He simply 'knows' that it is all fancy make-believe and that we are all 
> engaged in some kind of new-age nonsense here. He is highly educated and 
> highly respected as a teacher. Experts (specialists) once declared that 
> for a rocket to get to the moon it would have to weigh a million tons. 
> Experts once calculated that the total world market for computers would 
> be just eight computers. These particular experts worked for the Xerox 
> corporation. We all know what happened to Xerox in a fast-changing 
> world. Experts once declared that the telephone was nothing more than an 
> electronic toy. 
> These days, everybody can stake out their field and research whatever 
> they want. Life, however, is increasingly demanding that we all 
> specialise a little bit in many areas. As Bruno says, his own field of 
> thought is on the cusp of math, biology, psychology, theology, physics, 
> logic, computer science etc. Descartes said that it would be best to 
> teach all the sciences as one. Increasingly, the Internet is the EXPERT 
> and we are the fuzzy, creative innovators who design new fields of 
> endeavour with our vast realms of knowledge. A kind of emergence 
> phenomenon, if you will.
> Kim Jones

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to