Again, this is irrelevant. I find it hard to believe how often I have to repeat this. The Harvard Extension School does not hire tenured professors. You do not become a tenured faculty, let alone an associate professor, at Harvard's FAS if you have no research background. The story should fail a minimal scrutiny test from a layperson, let alone a journalist with more than 20 years of experience. This just doesn't add up.
As others have pointed out on Twitter, I am not sure who is the victim here; Nidhi Razdan apparently had multiple speaking engagements where she was introduced as Harvard faculty:
I am not sure how much more clear I can be with you. Nidhi Razdan claimed on Twitter that she was joining the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences as an Associate Professor. The Harvard Extension School has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. Here is the original tweet:
I know, and it is irrelevant and misleading. This is what she tweeted in the first place:
"After 21 years at NDTV, I am changing direction and moving on. Later this year, I start as an Associate Professor teaching journalism as part of Harvard University’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences."
Nobody is joining Harvard's FAS as as an Associate Professor without a PhD.
It may well be true that phishing scams can be easy to fall for, but it is not relevant to this story. Razdan tweeted that she was joining the Harvard's Faculty of Arts & Sciences as an Associate Professor. Regardless of how convincing the phishing attempt was, this is incredibly naive; Razdan does not have a PhD or any publications and Harvard's FAS does not have any professors in journalism.
This is just misleading. Razdan claimed on Twitter that she was joining the Harvard Faculty of Arts, not the Harvard Extension School. Harvard FAS does not have any journalism professors or offer degrees in journalism, and if it did, you would certainly need a PhD.
This is ridiculous. This journalist doesn't even have a PhD or any publications.
To those who are downvoting this because of the misleading comment below, note that she claimed on Twitter to be joining the Harvard Faculty of Arts and Sciences, not the Harvard Extension School. Nobody becomes an Associate Professor at the Harvard FAS without a PhD.
Again, I am sorry for being direct, but this does not make sense. If a Venusian man is immortal, then the "axiom" (preposition) that all men are mortal is false. In other words, the issue is not that the preposition "Socrates is Venusian" was missing but that the preposition "all men are mortal" is false.
It is possible to develop significant mathematical theory without using some axioms. For example, mathematicians sometimes choose not to use the "axiom of choice" when working with Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory. That does not mean that mathematical theorems proven without using the axiom of choice are invalid, even if you later assume that this axiom is true (or false).
Let me just add to this. Discovering new information (or new "axioms") will not change the truth of your previous conclusions if you did everything correctly, but you may find that the information you believed before was incorrect. In general, I believe it will be better to use a probabilistic model for most real-world cases since it is very difficult to find "axioms" for almost anything.
No, he is saying that he agrees with the assumptions and the way they are used to construct other propositions, but disagrees with the outcome, and therefore there must be something wrong on a higher level with the logical system itself that is being used here. I think what's actually happening here is much more banal.
>Isn't it sort of like Gödel's incompleteness theorem
Forgive me for being curt, but no, this is absolutely nothing like either of Gödel's incompleteness theorems.
Thanks Ross for the reply. I believe that this is a misunderstanding of how propositional logic works. If the propositions or axioms that you start with are sound, and if you correctly apply all inference rules, then the propositions that you derive will also be sound. "Missing axioms" that you did not use do no matter, regardless of their soundness.
I am unconvinced that "first-principles thinking" is the problem here. Surely one can refute the original argument without having to debunk axiomatic logic itself.
For example, one could argue something like this: Even though increased access to other people's money can cause founders to make irresponsible decisions, raising money has other advantages that tend to offset this.