At least in the economic arena, by this time the norm should have been green microeconomics and green macroeconomy since 2012 Rio +20 as the tools to be taught to deal with the environmental crisis as consensus on paradigm change to green market, green growth, and green economies was reached/RIO +20 Conference/UNCSD 2012, but traditional economic thinking and traditional macroeconomic thinking is still the norm, which means that universities knowingly or not are normalizing paradigm shift avoidance, and blocking the growth of knowledge a la Thomas Kuhn; and this raises the question: Paradigm shift avoidance and universities, do they have a duty to science based paradigm evolution of knowledge?
what do you think?
Simply state Yes and give your opinion on why you think Yes or say No, and state your opinion on why you think No.
In my opinion, since research (publication and career advancement) is predominantly focused on identifying gaps in current knowledge and filling them, there is little incentive or motivation to shoot for new moons and investigate the space between
David, as you may know when there is paradigm shift to the new moon, the old knowledge is left behind as it does not work in the moon. In 2012 the green market moon was born, yet green micro-economic and green macroeconomic did not follow..... What is the relevance of continue to study the gaps of the paradigm we know did not work and created the socio-environmental crisis, when by doing so we are making permanent, the environmental market failure. Do not Universities have the duty to teach at the end the current knowledge that addresses one to one the current crisis? Or are univeristy destined to be living in the past?
I asked the question with positive incentives as I myself can not believe what I am seeing ALL OVER THE WORLD, ALL UNIVIERSITIES, and to make matter worse, now I see a traditional market double down contrary to Thomas Kuhn paradigm evolution loop or the views of Karl Popper as when the theory does not matches the practice you avoid paradigm shift by either going to dwarf green markets 2012-2023 or going CIRCULAR economic thinking(2023-2024) WITHOUT ACADEMIC DISCOURSE AGAINST PARADIGM CHANGE after 2012 consensus for change, avoidance done apparently just to keep the traditional pollution production market running and make money as much as possible as long as there is no full system collapse.
But if there is collapse, would universities have first line responsibility?
Thank you for sharing your view David
What is falsifiable?
1)Code Popper-Freud Theorem
2)Code IQ Privilege Theorem
3)Preprint Nuance
4)Preprint Nuance 2
Alexander, thank you for taking the time to comment.
David did not answer the question directly, yet I politely still replied to him as he at least expressed his opinion.
The question is about green market paradigm shift avoidance since 2012 Rio +20 and university duties to the growth of science based knowledge that leaves traditional economic thinking behind, and you have not tried to answer the question at had here, which is: Paradigm shift avoidance and universities, do universities have a duty to science based paradigm evolution of knowledge?
What is your opinion, Yes and why you think so or No and why you think so.
Then we go from there.
Respectfully yours;
Lucio
No because paradigms should NOT shift. Science has to be falsifiable.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Geoscience
- Asia
- India