Online courses; learn how to code, learn how to work with data, learn new languages, expand your knowledge, and more.
Peer review, instead of helping science stay on track, is actually retarding real progress.
Peer review is anti-innovatory because it is a process that depends on approval by exponents of the current orthodoxy. . . . Perhaps the biggest argument against the peer review of completed studies is that it simply isn’t needed. With the World Wide Web everything can be published, and the world can decide what’s important and what isn’t. This proposition strikes terror into many hearts, but with so much poor-quality science published what do we have to lose?
How long can a democracy endure when its children don’t even know what a democracy is. I agree with Justice Sandra Day O Connor when she says, the results are “truly frightening, and demonstrate that we must put the same emphasis on these subjects that we are putting on math and science.” The only additional comment I would make is that if we are emphasizing science and math, we are doing a dreadful job of it. American school children rank very low in the developed world on either science or math.
I am continually struck by the social damage done to the human societies of the Earth because of the abounding grotesque economic inequities. Just look at the United States: There are numerous CEOs making more in an hour than a skilled craftsman whose work may become historically significant can make in a lifetime. And particularly I do not understand why it is not generally understood that seeing that children are fed and educated will change things for the better for everyone.