Wikipedia defines 'anganwadi' as a centre that provides "supplementary nutrition, non-formal pre-school education, nutrition and health education, immunization, health check-up and referral services." India has more than a million of them. This article describes the development of a modern solar-powered anganwadi. This project enhances the traditional model "a focal area for immunization, gender sensitization and maternal care. It also aims to enhance the learning environment through an e-learning module and skill enhancement program for women." There's a lot to be said for this model: it's practical, community-based and integrates health, education, and support.
I studied the history and philosophy of science for many years and, of course, have been a practicing researcher since 2001. This gives me a good perspective on Umair Haque's topic, and I would underline what he says. It's accurate. Where does culture intervene in science (and especially education)?
In all, Haque summarizes, " Categories, variables, conditions, tests — no matter how 'hard'” the science we are doing is, these will contain values and judgments, which are cultural assumptions."
The central message of this post from Michael Caulfield is that you have to trust someone, but the question is, whom? And I can accept that, though the phrase "trust but verify" springs to mind. But I really dislike the idea of trust as currency, which is the other core message of this post. That aside, he also says, "our problem is not gullibility, but rather the gullibility of cynics," using three examples of unwarranted doubt. But one of those involves Canada's National Post, which is most definitely not a trustworthy source. Another involves the Mayo Clinic - "they make money off of patients so they want to portray regular hospitals as working” - which strikes me as a good reason to distrust the U.S. hospital system. Even the academic article is questionable. Compared with the hundreds of cites other articles about birds, biologists, and indigenous knowledge get, 34 cites really is "meh" and a good reason to be sceptical. Ultimately, if nobody is trustworthy, you don't have to trust anyone.
This newsletter is sent only at the request of subscribers. If you would like to unsubscribe, Click here.
Know a friend who might enjoy this newsletter? Feel free to forward OLDaily to your colleagues. If you received this issue from a friend and would like a free subscription of your own, you can join our mailing list. Click here to subscribe.
Copyright 2018 Stephen Downes Contact: email@example.comThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.