QUESTION. People keep talking about the gap between theory of practice. In my eyes it should not exist it just doesn’t make sense. I wonder if comes from the institutionalization and professionalization of scholarship, which is getting very severe. Amateur scholarship à la 18th & 19th C gentleman scientist was cleaner, much clearner, of modern biases. Knowledge & technologies derived in one’s basement, thanks to absence of credentials, requires more rigorous contact with reality, and more relevance.
1) Is this true? 2) Can the web free us of the problem? 3) Should we limit credentialization beyond the minimum to force scholars to justify themselves through pertinence? 4) Where is the position between the Charybdis of university bullshit and the Scylla of the web charlatan and can peer-reviewing à la PloS direct us to the right spot? [PloS reviews the rigor of the scientific paper not the perceived importance]
THANKS friends for the collaboration.

via QUESTION. People… | Facebook.