= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
RichardKennaway comments on Nature editorial: Do scientists really need a PhD? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (18)
Nature article (may be behind a paywall).
The article does not claim to be "creating a debate", so why the quotes?
Given that the current consensus in the West is that scientists do need to get Ph.D.s, to declare your own view to the contrary as beyond debate, to liken the conventional view to creationism, to invite people not to assess the article, but to agree with your view of it, to give no evidence bearing on the matter -- what are you trying to do, see how many errors you can compress into how few words?
OK, you were right and I was wrong, I edited it again.
What I should have done was compare Nature's rhetorical question of asking a question with one correct answer to a creationist technique, not to suggest that they were intentionally using such a technique.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/17e/why_im_staying_on_bloggingheadstv/139l is what I previously linked the words "creating a debate" to.