paradigmanya lagi2 kompetisi… kalaupun kompetisi, bias menggunakan horizon 3 (https://medium.com/@designforsustainability/the-three-horizons-of-innovation-and-culture-change-d9681b0e0b0f)...

asumsinya tetap scopus dan wos adalah standar kualitas...

apa betul tidak ada konflik kepentingan sedangkan mereka pendesain dan pelaksana Sinta?

kok bisa? apa rupanya yang istimewa?

apa arti negara lokal lain? apa ada negara lokal?

kenapa penting?

apa landasan parameter2 ini?

maksud 'not consistent' apa?

ini masalah besar... kok tidak ada jawabannya? hanya dinyatakan saja?

integrasi dengan orcid?

alihkan dari scopus ke i4oc... juga mana wos dan dimension?

apa yang dikategorikan produk riset?

kenapa bisa indikatornya langsung scopus dan google scholar? mana wos?

bagaimana mengetahui lebih lanjut tentang fgd ini?

kalau negaranya tidak memiliki jurnal terindeks scopus/wos, kenapa indikatornya scopus/wos?

apa landasan/teori model, indikator, dan metrik ini?

ini pernyataannnya: "Indonesia has not developed its own measurement tool for research performance that can be used by policy-makers to evaluate researchers, institutions, researchers, and journals in various research fields [3]"

masak rujukannya ini: "3. Lukman L, Yaniasih Y, Maryati I, Silalahi MA, Sihombing A. The strength of 50 Indonesian institutions: Scopus indexed publication profile. Jakarta: Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education; 2016."

sudah bias scopus duluan...

di mana bisa didapatkan makalah ini?

cepat sekali dari penerimaan hingga penerbitan...

perlu dicatat bahwa email lukman sekalipun bukan email institusi, tapi email gmail... begitulah kurangnya infrastruktur teknologi indonesia...

siapa yang mengatakan ini?

periksa kata ini...

apa dasar (literatur) yang menghubungkan antara konflik antar kelompok dan genosida dengan nasionalisme?

bukankah semua nasionalisme politicised?

literatur2 utama tentang kata kunci ini sudah dirujuk?

I’m not looking for some sort of rosy answer here, but do you see any signs of hope? Or are you pretty pessimistic about anything very positive in the near future? I’m pessimistic about the flourishing of liberalism or secularism, but I’m not necessarily pessimistic that some kind of social peace or inclusive politics is possible. I would argue that that requires us to come to terms with Islam’s role in public life, that Islam has to be accommodated in a way that we American liberals might not be comfortable with. I want to challenge people to question their assumptions. I guess this is a question I’m always curious to ask people: Why do you think liberalism is necessarily appropriate for X society? I feel like it’s so ingrained in how we view the world, that it’s almost hard for us to articulate it because it’s almost like a religious belief, it’s a question of faith. That’s one part of it. I do think that social peace is possible, and Malaysia and Indonesia—which rarely get talked about in Washington—are really interesting cases because Indonesia is certainly more democratic but has also more implementation of Sharia ordinances on the local level than Egypt, Jordan, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, you name it. In some sense democratization does not necessarily go hand in hand with secularism; it might actually go hand in hand with more Islam in politics, if that’s what voters want. How would you answer that question by the way: Why do you think liberalism is necessarily better for X society in the Middle East or Southeast Asia?

Erdogan wants to transform Turkish society. He wants to undo the secularist legacy. He wants to use a very powerful centralized state to be the vehicle for that transformation.* That’s a recurring story throughout the Middle East: Everyone wants to capture the levers of state power, because states, at least some states, are very strong, bloated, and overbearing and they dominate every aspect of life. Once you capture that, then you can really do what you want to do. We as Westerners are not innocent bystanders in this either. The EU’s essentially giving up hope on the idea of Turkey’s accession into the European Union was a major mistake because that was providing real incentives for Erdogan and his Justice and Development Party [AKP] to play well with others, and to promote expanded freedoms, and to undo some of the problematic aspects of Turkish politics. Once you got rid of that, then Erdogan was more empowered to follow through on his worst instincts.

Do you have a better idea? Liberalism is only neutral to those who are already liberal. If you are someone who was born and raised in Pakistan or Jordan, you’re probably going to have a different way of looking at the world and the role of religion. Who are we to say that liberalism has to be the way for all people? Even if we think so, we can’t really force people to be something they don’t want to be. I think also any society needs some kind of unifying norms and ideas that bind citizens together. Unfortunately in a lot of the Middle East, nationalism is either not compelling because of the arbitrariness of national identities or borders, or nationalism is dangerous because people can justify dangerous things in the name of the nation. We have the same issue here, so what binds us together? I think the universal condition is a search for meaning, and liberal democracy has not provided a strong enough or compelling enough answer to those sets of questions.

Gross Criminality is a far better explanation

Perhaps Gross Criminality is the ultimate example of the anosognosic's most self destructive denial and Gross Stupidity? The delusion that 'we will never get caught'? The delusion that there are no such things as 'consequences'?

What ultimately happens to a Society, even Civilisation itself, when its whole infrastructure becomes dominated by anosognosic Gross Criminals?

I suspect we might be about to find out . . . . . .

The way out is to try to understand that ‘ignorance can be cured stupidity is forever’, and that ‘all models are wrong but some are useful’. One then has the basic tools to address pretty much anything, but the lessons can be hard so survival is more assured at the population level as opposed to the individual level. Once one can assess a situation and act in some manner that will result in a kind of predictable response we have a way to interact with the people and environment around us. Science has done this best, we have some highly refined models that allow us to predict outcomes based upon observations, but it is not ‘truth’ as our models keep changing, and I think that most scientists will acknowledge that the models are subject to change. Consider a book on physics surveying what we from 1900. Applied sciences like engineering allow us to apply models over some limited boundary conditions, but engineers end up wondering in the darkness just everyone else once they are outside of those boundary conditions. Consider that most ‘creation scientists’ are in fact engineers.

Science can end up producing consensus on ‘what appears be happening’ on a global level, where the models can change quickly, while religion attempts to define and defend a fixed truth, the result being tribalism. Be careful of the experiments that you perform, as an individual, a citizen, and as a human.

Anthony Flood New York City June 27, 2010 Bernard Lonergan not only used a notion of "scotosis" (blind spot) in the 1950s, as I noted in comment no. 66, but in his 1959 Cincinnati lectures on education referred to "the unknown unknown," by which he meant "the range of questions I do not raise at all, or that, if they were raised, I would not understand, or find significant, or, if I understood what is meant, I would see no point in asking them. I would not consider it worthwhile finding out what the answer was. I could not care less whether there is an answer to such questions or not. This is the realm of the unknown unknown, the field of indocta ignoranta. And how big it is we do not know." Collected Works, Topics in Education, p. 89. Dunning's 2005 book is "Self-Insight," and the key affirmation of Lonergan's 1957 "Insight" is self-affirmation, i.e., affirmation of oneself as a unity of experience, understanding, and judging. If the index of "Self-Insight" is any indication, Lonergan's work lies somewhere beyond Dunning's horizon.

The examples may not be the best, but simply stated, much of our behavior is instinctive, not intellectual. And since we possess a capacity to realize that a lot of it is potentially destructive, yet we have almost no success with controlling it, a social or mass anasognosia seems to me a way of co-existing with our hard-wired selves.

"Algazel (a.k.a. Al Ghazali, الغزالی), the Arab (Arabic language) philosopher who figured out "Hume's problem" ~700 years before Hume) also spelled out Adam Smith's "pin factory" ~650 years before Smith. I am convinced that Adam Smith merely repeated Algazel's idea as Arab philosophers were well-known in Latin translation. "

It is reasonable to challenge the neoclassic one-eyed conceit, but some earlier thinkers than Ibn Khaldun should not be forgotten - for example Aristotle with his distinction of use value and trade value (crucial for Marx), and his critique of chrematistics, is just as relevant for a reasonable systematic view of economics.

berarti hanya untuk kum saja...

ini yang mau diluruskan... kalaupun ini mau dipertahankan, harus ada klausul atau (tawarkan alternatif)...

serupa dengan keluhan/kritik terhadap opensciencemonitor di uni-eropa...

lihat dora/leidenmanifesto/dll... juga praktek penilaian di inggris, belanda, jerman... bagaimana praktek penilaian di as/australia/skandinavia/jepang? di cina/india? di amerika selatan? di malaysia/singapura dan asean pada umumnya?

masukkan doaj di sini... juga indeksasi2 lain yang non komersial...

“At the end of my book, I say that a sociopath is described as someone with no conscience. I think she absolutely has sociopathic tendencies. One of those tendencies is pathological lying. I believe this is a woman who started telling small lies soon after she dropped out of Stanford, when she founded her company, and the lies became bigger and bigger,” Carreyrou said. “I think she’s someone that got used to telling lies so often, and the lies got so much bigger, that eventually the line between the lies and reality blurred for her.”

I am not opposed to a basic income (or citizen's dividend) in principle, but I am concerned about the cost. The rent of land in the US is probably one-third to one-fifth of GDP, provided that other taxes are abolished. Being conservative and assuming that the lower figure is correct, and that a land-value tax (LVT) could realistically capture 80 percent of it, we'd have 16 percent of GDP in revenue, or about $3 trillion a year. That's barely enough to either a) pay $10,000 a year enough to every man, woman, and child in the country or b) replace all income, sales, and property taxes (but not payroll taxes) at all levels of government on a revenue-neutral basis. The former option would require the retention of existing taxes (which would reduce the revenue potential of an LVT, thus compromising the whole plan, and do damage the economy) or the complete abolition of government (which is a fantasy). Therefore, I prefer the later option, coupled with reductions in government spending.

I also question the necessity of a basic income. If land rents were taxed, and everything else were untaxed, then we would have low unemployment and low inflation, and so the gains of economic growth would be very widely distributed. There would be little need for a basic income to lift people out of poverty, since nearly everyone would have a job and earn a sufficient income to live on. Under these circumstances, I think it would be better to focus government social spending on the handful of people who would continue to need it, such as the low-income elderly and disabled, rather than funding a basic income.

The academics we look to as authorities in understanding society and the state have failed to do this, because, like their medieval predecessors and counterparts, they are themselves privileged clients and employees of the state, with a massive personal self-interest (subconscious more than conscious) in rationalising and defending its role, self-image (as our "nation") and ideologies (social, political, economic and racial, formerly religious), on which the state bases its claim to moral and knowledgeable authority.

dilgreen • 8 months ago

The call here is for a deep political story to set against the story of neo-liberalism that animates the right. Excellent! Dead on. But everything that follows is hand-waving. No philosophy, none...

We have to build from a philosophy of autonomy, freedom and human dignity. Build from that to policy. Make freedom our motivating myth. Which means forgetting a century of striving for fairness as a means to an end. Life isn't fair. And people don't want fairness. They want freedom, and they want dignity. Neo-liberalism perverts freedom by equating it principally with economic freedom. We need to build a philosophy that celebrates and works with the dynamic of individual freedom as meaningful only in a social setting. Fairness - relative fairness, not absolute fairness, will follow, sure as night follows day.