Never before has knowledge been so profoundly specialized.
The idea that someone working in one profession very quickly becomes out of their depth when discussing another is generally familiar. Nowadays, even between two people in the same profession, but specializing in different areas, one will probably not understand much of the other’s specialty.
Albert Einstein once wrote that someone with specialist knowledge alone “more closely resembles a well-trained dog.”
While he qualified that sentiment, it nicely sums up the predicament of the individual living in this era of specialization.
We use the term “doctor,” a “person of learning,” uniformly to refer to people who hold a doctorate, giving rise to the misconception that a person should be considered a polymath simply by virtue of the fact that they have such a degree. This is misleading in the extreme.
A doctor in the humanities would almost certainly be a complete novice when it comes to the sciences and someone with a doctorate in the sciences cannot be expected to have anything but a passing knowledge of their country’s history. Why, then, is the doctor equated with the polymath?
Indeed, a person’s qualifications do not always adequately reflect their academic erudition. The blind worship of anyone with a doctorate must end, and the idea that academics are necessarily the best people to govern must go with it.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has a doctorate from Harvard University, and yet he could still say with authority in a speech to Lions Club International that deer antlers, a famous New Zealand export, are the part of the deer’s fur that grows inside its ear. The president emphasized the point by indicating his own right ear. This was broadcast on TV, so there was little possibility his words were misheard or misrepresented by the media. Better confirmation could not be had for the idea that, while having a doctorate shows you are well-educated, it is certainly no guarantee of common sense.
If you are looking for examples of people with a wealth of knowledge, but precious little common sense among Ma’s inner circle, why stop at Ma himself?
Every caterer, buffet owner and roadside food vendor understands that oil, gas and electricity price hikes will mean an increase in the prices of the meals they sell, and yet National Development Council Minister Kuan Chung-ming (管中閔), who has a doctorate in economics, can still say — bless him — that Taiwan is a rare example in Asia of a country with a stable cost of living.
How surprised he must have been to discover that the price of the popular chishang chicken rice lunch boxes has gone up. Perhaps Kuan studied the economics of the ruling classes, not that of commoners. Otherwise, how could the new council head be so indifferent to the cost of living here?
He did, of course, refer to himself in an arrogant way the other day, before correcting himself, suggesting that he thought himself better than ordinary folk.
It was also Kuan who said that consumers were less well off in Japan and South Korea than in Taiwan because, even though those countries have a higher GDP, they also have higher inflation. He then used the prices of 92-octane gasoline as an example, saying that the price in Taiwan was about NT$34 per liter, compared with almost NT$50 per liter in Japan.
However, he forgot to take into account the fact that Taiwan’s per capita income is less than half of Japan’s, so that oil price increases affect Taiwanese consumers more.
It is Taiwan, then, where people have less spending power because of the increasing price of gas, not Japan.
In terms of academic qualifications alone, the nation’s Cabinet shines compared with those of many other countries in the world. It also has one of the lowest approval ratings of any governments. Should we think again about the advisability of filling Cabinet positions with people who hold doctorates?
Chang Kuo-tsai is a retired National Hsinchu University of Education associate professor and a former deputy secretary-general of the Taiwan Association of University Professors.
Translated by Paul Cooper
The Chinese government on March 29 sent shock waves through the Tibetan Buddhist community by announcing the untimely death of one of its most revered spiritual figures, Hungkar Dorje Rinpoche. His sudden passing in Vietnam raised widespread suspicion and concern among his followers, who demanded an investigation. International human rights organization Human Rights Watch joined their call and urged a thorough investigation into his death, highlighting the potential involvement of the Chinese government. At just 56 years old, Rinpoche was influential not only as a spiritual leader, but also for his steadfast efforts to preserve and promote Tibetan identity and cultural
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Strategic thinker Carl von Clausewitz has said that “war is politics by other means,” while investment guru Warren Buffett has said that “tariffs are an act of war.” Both aphorisms apply to China, which has long been engaged in a multifront political, economic and informational war against the US and the rest of the West. Kinetically also, China has launched the early stages of actual global conflict with its threats and aggressive moves against Taiwan, the Philippines and Japan, and its support for North Korea’s reckless actions against South Korea that could reignite the Korean War. Former US presidents Barack Obama
The pan-blue camp in the era after the rule of the two Chiangs — former presidents Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) and Chiang Ching-kuo (蔣經國) — can be roughly divided into two main factions: the “true blue,” who insist on opposing communism to protect the Republic of China (ROC), and the “red-blue,” who completely reject the current government and would rather collude with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to control Taiwan. The families of the former group suffered brutally under the hands of communist thugs in China. They know the CPP well and harbor a deep hatred for it — the two
RSS