haha, china and russia and friends are shitting all over your "scientific models".<br /> the ONLY problem is "too many humans", aka overpopulation, caused by pacifism.<br /> these "save the world" policies are collective suicide for the 95% useless eaters. byee!

Cailin O’Connor. (2020, November 10). Using agent-based methods we show how even modest contact between disciplines can allow better methods to spread. This is because outsiders can award academic credit to those using good methods, leading to their uptake. 5 [Tweet]. @cailinmeister. https://twitter.com/cailinmeister/status/1326229762533060608

Boon, Mieke. ‘The Role of Disciplinary Perspectives in an Epistemology of Scientific Models’. Preprint, June 2020. http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/17272/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter.

Sign of the times? One part is about economics as the discipline of decision-making. Economists often claim that their work is about any risk/benefit analysis and isn’t purely about money. But the whole thing is still about “resources” or “exchange value”, in one way or another. So, it could be undue influence from this way of thinking. A second part is that, as this piece made clear at the onset, “education is big business”. In some ways, “education” is mostly a term for a sector or market. Schooling, Higher Education, Teaching, and Learning are all related. Corporate training may not belong to the same sector even though many of the aforementioned EdTech players bet big on this. So there’s a logic to focus on the money involved in “education”. Has little to do with learning experiences, but it’s an entrenched system.

Finally, there’s something about efficiency, regardless of effectiveness. It’s somewhat related to economics, but it’s often at a much shallower level. The kind of “your tax dollars at work” thinking which is so common in the United States. “It’s the economy, silly!”