What is wrong with this picture?

Well it is not a regular screenshot but that is not the point. This was close to the top (very close) at the web page for Svenska Dagbladet (Svd), one of Sweden's largest newspapers.

Basically it is all about the effects that the Russian occupation of Crimea will have on the Swedish economy. On the left hand you have the Cathedral of Vasily the Blessed at the Red Square and to the right you have a determined person outside a Swedish bank. Underneath you have two headlines the top promise you information about the effect on the interest rates in Sweden and the lower is a declaration from chief economists ”We are prepared if it escalates”, it is unclear which chief economists but a guess is the top bank's.

I am usually not fond of opinion pieces in the press or on blogs, I prefer some information. But here is my opinion about having the economic angle at the top when reporting about this.

IT IS WRONG! When the Russian military is invading a neighbouring nation I don't want to know that the Swedish economists are prepared and are following the situation carefully. I want to know that the Swedish diplomats are working around the clock, I want to know that the Swedish military is on top of the situation, and that our politicians are informed about what is happening.
After that I want detailed analysis from academics that are studying Russia and/or Ukraine. People that know something about the history of the nations and the mentality of the people involved. I want in-depth reporting by journalist who know the region as the back of their hands. Maybe even someone who talks about democracy and sovereignty. Not this!

When did a culture that used to care about liberty, freedom and brotherhood, a culture that had values, ideals and visions become so focused on exceeding the profit plan for the next quarter that Putin can safely invade Crimea as long as he promise not to touch our money? Because that is the bottom line here. As long as Putin promises business as usual he will get away with this. Standing up to bullies is just too costly for the economists.

Lost Integrity

It has happened again. It appears as if it is an eternal struggle and a lingering question, what kind of scientific rigour should you aspect from a university. Although, or perhaps because, Uppsala University is my Alma Mater I have to voice my concern. It happened May 22^nd and it was the defence of a doctoral thesis named The Eucharist as Orikonso at the faculty of theology.

The thesis is only one example of a fundamental problem at many universities and since I have not read it myself I will not linger in critiquing the thesis. Anyone can read the abstract of the thesis, it gives some idea of what aim the author had with his work. First the thesis and latter the defence is described by one knowledgeable source as:
“The author does not hide in his book that his ambition from the outset has been a normative one, not a scientific one.”
“When the author is ranking religions and cultures no secular values, norms or characteristics seem to be used but only private evaluations and declarations.”
At the defence of the thesis:
“In front of the faculty opponent he frankly declared that he as a Christian theologian is in his full right to formulate a Christian theology as a doctoral thesis. This is what he had done, he said. He seemed to be very satisfied with himself.”
It is certainly not the first time that someone uses a doctoral thesis to push his or her own ideas and it will not be the last.

A conviction is a dangerous thing because it can have a person looking for all the things that support the conviction and disregard anything that contradict it. This behaviour appears to have no correlation to the intelligence of the individual. In Uppsala the person that discovered the lymphatic system and who started the botanical research continued by Linnaeus was the same man who wrote a book “proving” that Sweden was the ancient Atlantis. His name was Olof Rudbeck and he was living in a time when the understanding of the scientific method was not common knowledge. (Not that the scientific method is common knowledge today.)

There will always be people with strong convictions that want the seal of approval from universities. It can be for strange theories where the facts do not agree with the preferred conclusion, violating the scientific method, or it can be for ideas and interpretations of a purely subjective nature, outside the scope of the scientific method.
These two types of conviction can be compared to claiming that chocolate ice-cream always contain pineapple and that chocolate is the best flavour of ice-cream; clearly none deserve any kind of endorsement from a university.
Still universities in Sweden and without any doubt throughout the world, give passing degrees to people that do not meet the requirements. Why?

A great number of other examples from Swedish universities can be found in the book Högskolans lågvattenmärken (in Swedish). And talking to friends still at university I know that teachers are now told to make sure that every student pass certain classes. This is of course recommendable if it implied making sure that the students all learn the curriculum unfortunately that is not the case.

Without doing the necessary research I can think of three different reasons why unscientific thesis are accepted and students that have not learned the curriculum are given a passing degree.

It is a fear of conflict. Every student consider it their right to get a passing degree and it is easier to give it to them than to have them making a fuss about it. (People that feel unjustly treated can make a real big fuss about it.)

It is an economic matter. Since a department receives money for each student they pass (meant to be an incentive for high quality education) in financially strained times money is more important than quality.

It is a question of epistemology. The universities are filled with people that have a relativistic view of knowledge where each opinion is of equal value.

Of these three the last one is the least likely because if the professors and researchers believed in that kind of relativism they would not complain. But perhaps more people will come to have this relativistic opinion even at the universities.

Whatever the reason, when the scientific rigour is abolished the university has lost its integrity and if the university loose the idea about the scientific method it has lost its soul. It was supposed to be about searching for the truth and not about pushing opinions.