The End of Being a Duke Professor and What It Means for the Future of Higher Ed

That means that we can't compare paying for college to paying for a normal good, say a car. If there was a way for drivers to give a car poor ratings and that affected the car company negatively, that's great! The market works. But college is about more than just skills transfer, and that's why having student feedback is important but can't trump other considerations. That's also why most universities have some state aid (either direct in terms of cash from the treasury, or indirect in terms of being a non profit).

I don't know how to solve this, though.

Scientific knowledge is highly reliable when ingested via modalities like engineering; generally speaking, planes fly and bridges stand and computers do their thing. Cool.

But what about, say, psychology. Or sociology. Or economics.

I have to seriously question the notion that these fields are actually more advanced than the evolved effective theories found in religion, given their general proclivity to support what’s politically fashionable and the frequency with which their theories fail.

I think that’s what a lot of people mean, when contrasting science and religion: that the faux rigor of psychology is worse than the effective theories evolved over thousands of years, and unsuitable replacements with which to make choices about society.

Of course, given the number of scientists who have tried to insist that Copenhagen interpretation is proven science and I need to stop questioning them suggests that even particle physics has fashions and dogmas.

"It must be worth exploring" is the dangerous authoritarian ideology that is the basis of censorship. It's why free speech is a right. Not the "right to explore those worth exploring".

"What is worth exploring" is entirely subjective.

If we applied your logic, then things like LGBT rights, civil rights, physics, biology, etc are all left to the whims of authority. If people truly thought like you, then heliocentrism wouldn't have been explored because "it wasn't worth exploring" 500 years ago. Actually, it was blasphemy.

You do realize that "everything worth exploring" was pretty much banned, taboo or attacked throughout history? It's why the founders enshrined free speech into the constitution.

Things that are wrong are just as important to discuss as things that are right. It's part of the learning process and part of progress.

https://sites.duke.edu/evancharney/files/2014/09/Liberal-bia...

Statement 1 of the "open to experience" section of a popular personality test is the following:

>1. I believe that we should look to our religious authorities for decisions on moral issues. (Agree: Openness score goes down)

He claimed this introduced a political bias, stating:

>Statement 1 reflects a liberal ideological bias against religion. Is reliance upon scientific authorities, for example, close-minded? Granted, the question concerns moral decisions (so let us assume that science cannot resolve questions of right and wrong). Why, then, is reliance upon religious authorities as opposed, for example, to philosophical or ethical authorities or, simply, moral experts, singled out as an instance of close-mindedness? Academics often rely upon authorities when making decisions on moral issues (e.g., the authority of John Rawls when considering matters of distributive justice), although they would likely be uncomfortable characterizing this as reliance upon an authority (even if it is)