I don't disagree, but maybe part of what's trying to be communicated here is that systematic study of the world is not what's happening at times.
When I say this I think of the anecdote in the article about how "intellectuals" prescribe more education as a panacea for social reform instead of the ideas offered by the author. This as a possible case of their own biases precluding a systematic approach.
As I write this, the "frankly crap" part comes to mind again. There's not much substantive here, just a bunch of opinions.
> I don't disagree, but maybe part of what's trying to be communicated here is that systematic study of the world is not what's happening at times.
If that was the problem the piece hoped to address (and it certainly is a problem in, e.g., media punditry -- though I'd argue that's not because of any general problem with "academics" but with the process by which media pundits get selected), one would expect that it would say so, and that the solution would be some better scrutiny to assure prescriptions come from systematic study, not a solution unconnected to the problem like suggesting that "every professor, opinion journalist, and foundation expert, as a condition of career advancement, had to spend a year or two working in a shopping mall, hotel, hospital, or warehouse."
EDIT: Additionally, if this was the issue, you'd expect that the author would actually support the argument with evidence from systematic study supporting the nature and source of the problem and the utility of the recommended solution.
When I say this I think of the anecdote in the article about how "intellectuals" prescribe more education as a panacea for social reform instead of the ideas offered by the author. This as a possible case of their own biases precluding a systematic approach.
As I write this, the "frankly crap" part comes to mind again. There's not much substantive here, just a bunch of opinions.