From: L-Soft list server at St. John's University (1.8c) To: Ian Pitchford Subject: File: "SCI-CULT LOG9709" Date: Sunday, September 27, 1998 10:18 AM ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 18:10:26 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Matthew Baggott Subject: Re: reading research In-Reply-To: <199708272336.QAA113696@itsa.ucsf.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Thu, 28 Aug 1997, Giuseppe Vergani wrote: > Anybody know anything about quantitative reading evaluation? > I need something like a questionnaire to measure > the rating of a text, or a set of questions to evaluate a text liking. > Questions mustn't be for children. I'll bet there are such questionnaires, although I am not aware of them offhand. If you have access to the PsychINFO database, that might be a good place to look. However, I am aware of some research done by Don Kuiken developing and validating a Literary Response Questionnaire (LRQ), which assesses "individual differences in readers' orientations toward literary texts." Kuiken is in the Dept of Psychology at the University of Alberta and has a profile on their web page: http://web.psych.ualberta.ca/staff_bios/kuikend.html The web page includes the following information: >> The LRQ includes a scale that reflects the extent to >>which readers derive personal insights from their reading experiences >>(Miall & Kuiken, 1995). We have found that this >>scale predicts for whom reading facilitates shifts in self-awareness, >>especially under experimental conditions that induce >>what is traditionally called the "aesthetic attitude" (Kuiken, Miall, >>Busink, & Cey, in preparation). Also, paralleling our >>findings with dreams, we have found that bereaved individuals reading >>poetry concerning loss are more likely to >>experience shifts in self-perception than people who have experienced >>other types of loss (cf. Kuiken, Miall, & >>Meunier, in preparation). >>We have tried to clarify how the distinctive qualities of literary texts >>facilitate such changes in self-perceptual depth. We >>have found evidence that stylistic variations (referred to as >>foregrounding) in literary texts prompt the "defamiliarization" >>of familiar referents and evoke feelings that guide subsequent >>reconceptualization of those referents (Miall & Kuiken, >>1994). We continue to study these processes in a laboratory that is >>equipped for computerized presentation of textual >>materials and assessment of reader's reactions. >> .... >>Miall, D.S., & Kuiken, D. (1995). Aspects of literary response: A new >>questionnaire. Research in the Teaching of English, 29, 37-58. >> Abstract. A newly developed instrument, the Literary Response >>Questionnaire (LRQ), provides scales that measure seven different >>aspects of readers' orientation toward literary texts: Insight, Empathy, >>Imagery Vividness, Leisure Escape, Concern with Author, Story-Driven >>Reading, and Rejection of Literary Values. The present report presents >>evidence that each of these scales possesses satisfactory internal >>consistency, retest reliability, and factorial validity. Also, a series >>of five studies provided preliminary evidence that each scale may be >>located in a theoretically plausible network of relations with certain >>global personality traits (e.g., Absorption), with aspects of cognitive >>style (e.g., Regression in Service of the Ego), and with some of the >>learning skills that are relevant to effective work in the classroom >>(e.g., Elaborative Processing). In a variety of teaching and research >>settings, the LRQ may be a useful measure of individual differences in >>readers' orientation toward literary texts. This may not be what you were looking for, but I think it is real neat research. Matthew Baggott, mbagg@itsa.ucsf.edu Research Associate, Drug Dependence Research Center University of California, San Francisco ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 2 Sep 1997 19:16:08 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Matthew Baggott Subject: Re: reading research In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 2 Sep 1997, Matthew Baggott wrote: > However, I am aware of some research done by Don Kuiken developing and > validating a Literary Response Questionnaire (LRQ), which assesses > "individual differences in readers' orientations toward literary texts." > Kuiken is in the Dept of Psychology at the University of Alberta and > has a profile on their web page: > > http://web.psych.ualberta.ca/staff_bios/kuikend.html After writing this, I realize that I am guilty of (what I consider) science's most ubiquitous sin: attributing authorship to just one of the producers of the work. I would therefore like to add that Kuiken collaborates with David Miall, in the Dept. of English, and several graduate students. The "Reader Response" research team's URL is: http://www.ualberta.ca/~dmiall/reading.htm and contains abstracts of interesting and relevant work by Miall as well. Matthew Baggott, mbagg@itsa.ucsf.edu Research Associate, Drug Dependence Research Center University of California, San Francisco ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 14:06:16 -0700 Reply-To: Joachim.Schummer@geist-soz.uni-karlsruhe.de Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Joachim Schummer Organization: Institute of Philosophy, University of Karlsruhe Subject: HYLE-Philosophy of Chemistry Journal/New Issue MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Members of SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE: A new issue of --------------------------------------------------------- HYLE An International Journal for the Philosophy of Chemistry --------------------------------------------------------- is now available with full online text at: http://www.uni-karlsruhe.de/~philosophie/hyle.html HYLE is distributed non-commercially. If you have an interest in philosophical topics of chemistry, you are recommended to subscribe to HYLE (free of charge!), in order to receive regular informations off-list. The new issue contains articles from: Roald Hoffmann, Barry K. Carpenter (Ithaca, USA), Vladimir I. Minkin (Rostov-on-Don, Russia): "Ockham's Razor and Chemistry" Klaus Mainzer (Augsburg, Germany): "Symmetry and Complexity - Fundamental Concepts of Research in Chemistry" Giuseppe Del Re (Napoli, Italy): "Technology and the Spirit of Alchemy" Daniel Rothbart (Fairfax, USA), Irmgard Scherer (Baltimore, USA): "Kant's Critique of Judgment and the Scientific Investigation of Matter" Joachim Schummer (Karlsruhe, Germany): "Challenging Standard Distinctions between Science and Technology: The Case of Preparative Chemistry" F. Michael Akeroyd (Bradford, UK): "Conceptual Aspects of Theory Appraisal: Some Biochemical Examples" Klaus Ruthenberg (Coburg, Germany):"Short Biography: Friedrich Adolf Paneth" as well as book reviews and reports. --------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Joachim Schummer Institute of Philosophy, University of Karlsruhe Postfach 69 80, D-76128 Karlsruhe, GERMANY Joachim.Schummer@geist-soz.uni-karlsruhe.de ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 18:34:25 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jude Hollins Subject: Defining technology for educators? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" hey all, there is a fascinating thread on the ed policy listserv. part of the discussion has unfolded around conceptions of technology. the primary issue is what role technology _should_ play in education. some see language, math, etc as part of technology. others see that as strange. would any of you like to outline some thoughts on the subject? i'd be interested in forwarding them to that list... \jude "biased towards the art/science/inquiry/culture view" hollins ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 3 Sep 1997 23:39:45 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jude Hollins Subject: Re: education "reform" In-Reply-To: <199708280307.WAA11861@oz.memphis.edu> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" >WHAT DO THINK about the book SCHOOLED TO ORDER by david NASAW ?? > jeff hey jeff, i've come across that book several times, but, have yet to pick it up for a read. if you're digging into the whole critical theory meets education scene, here are classic texts you might really like: linda mcneil _contradictions of contol_ (sociology of structure and knowledge) friere's _pedagogy of the oppressed_ (classic critical text) macloed _ain't no makin it_ (great ethnography and intro to social reproduction theory) joel spring _the american school_ (classic cultural critique and historiography) giroux and mclaren (eds) _critical pedagogy, the state, and cultural struggle_ (guess) dewey _experience and education_ or _democracy and education_ (classic philosophy) carnoy _education as cultural imperialism_ (a shot at a bigger, comparative picture) popkewitz. _political sociology of educational reform_ (another classic text and author) george spindler _education and cultural process_ (overview of anthropology of ed) there are so many voices in the education scene. these seem like some great texts to collect if ed studies is potentially mixed with some current 'radical' questions and concerns. :) if i had a chance to give undergraduates just two or three books to check out it would be macloed, spring, and dewey (the first text). i was a "ta" last year and found the spring book an excellent launch pad for the production of endless constructive, exploratory, and critical questions. i think a good sense of the history of public schooling should be one of a few requirements for a liberal arts education. :) (another being exploration of philosophy of science!) if you are on a real libertarian kick, see the work of stephen arons. the deschooling and libertarian stuff is a little "marginal and damn proud" for me. i like marginality, and i AM proud of it, but, there's more to the story. i am not sure what you are interested in, but, i hope this all helps a little. \jude ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 10:44:35 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Richard Rogers Subject: Amsterdam Public Lecture Series Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > >* Please Forward Where Appropriate * > >You are cordially invited to attend the lectures in the following series, which is part of 'Science & Technology in Public Places', a collaborative course between the Department of Science Dynamics at the University of Amsterdam, newMetropolis Science & Technology Center and the Reinwardt Academy. > > >Public Lecture Series Title: 'Between Science & the People' > >Time & Place: Wednesdays, 16.30-18.00, newMetropolis Science & Technology Center, Oosterdok 2, Amsterdam, within walking distance of Amsterdam Central Railway Station. A reduced admission of fl. 12,50 to newMetropolis will be charged. > > >SCHEDULE > > >3/9 Wiebe Bijker, University of Maastricht, 'Science, Technology & the Public' >Prof. Bijker will discuss the new politics of science and technology, where certain publics are made into agents of sociotechnical change > >10/9 Peter van Mensch, Reinwardt Academie, 'Convergence & Divergence: Museums of Science & Technology in Historical Perspective' >Dr. van Mensch will discuss the evolving depiction of science & technology in dedicated museums. > >17/9 Ulrike Felt, University of Vienna, 'Why Popularise Science?' >Dr. Felt will provide an historical overview of the rationale and practice of science popularisation from the turn-of-the-century to the present. > >24/9 Jean Davallon, Universite Jean Monnet (St. Etienne), 'The Language of Exhibitions' >Prof. Davallon will discuss the relationship between the construction of scientific knowledge and its display. > >1/10 Gaby Porter, Museum of Science & Industry (Manchester), 'Lost Voices in the Museum' >Dr. Porter will discuss the curatorial biases in the formulation of historical narratives of science and technology in the museum. > >8/10 Denis Samson, l'Universite de Quebec a Montreal, 'Teasing in and out the Messages' >Dr. Samson will discuss the various historical rationales and techniques to communicate points of view about the workings of science in the museum. > >15/10 Andrew Jamison, University of Aalborg, 'Mistrustful Movements' >Prof. Jamison will discuss the rise of mistrust in the modernist scientific enterprise, with an emphasis on the environmental movements of the 1970s and beyond. > >22/10 Brian Wynne, University of Lancaster, 'Public (Mis)understanding of Science or Scientific (Mis)understanding of Publics' >Prof. Wynne will take up scientists' insensitivity towards certain publics' understanding of science. > >29/10 David Wilson, Museum of Jurassic Technology (Los Angeles), 'Truths and Untruths in the Critical Museum' >Dr. Wilson will discuss the techniques and philosophy behind challenging truth claims in his museum of unnatural history. > >5/11 Patrick Boylan, University of the City of London, 'Ethical Exhibitionism' >Prof. Boylan will discuss the extent to which commercialism allows museums to remain critical and ethical. > >12/11 Roy MacLeod, University of Sydney, 'Museums as Malls of the Imagination' >Prof. MacLeod will discuss how the consumer culture is (mis)represented in the museum. > >19/11 Joost Douma, newMetropolis >The director of newMetropolis will discuss his vision of the evolving institution and answer questions. > >Program subject to change. > >For further information on the lecture series and/or the university course, contact: > >Richard Rogers >Dept. of Science Dynamics >University of Amsterdam >Nieuwe Achtergracht 166 >1018 WV Amsterdam >tel. (31) (20) 525 6577 >email Rogers@chem.uva.nl > >or > >James Bradburne/Barbara Regeer >newMetropolis >Oosterdok 2 >1011 VX Amsterdam >(31) (20) 531 3233 >Bradburne@newmet.nl >Regeer@newmet.nl > >or > >Peter van Mensch >Reinwardt Academie >Dapperstraat 315 >1093 BS Amsterdam >(31) (20) 692 2111 >mensch@mus.ahk.nl > > > > ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 4 Sep 1997 16:45:33 +0200 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Does anyone recognize him/herself? Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Bradburne@newmet.nl;Regeer@newmet.nl; From: Arie Dirkzwager Subject: Re: Amsterdam Public Lecture Series Cc: Rogers@chem.uva.nl;mensch@mus.ahk.nl; At 10:44 AM 9/4/97 +0200, you wrote: >>Public Lecture Series Title: 'Between Science & the People' >> >>Time & Place: Wednesdays, 16.30-18.00, newMetropolis Science & Technology >Center, Oosterdok 2, Amsterdam, Is het mogelijk dat ik telkens voor elke lezing een aankondiging per gewone post krijg? Bij voorbaat dank! Arie Dirkzwager Prof.Dr.A.Dirkzwager, Educational Instrumentation Technology, Computers in Education. Huizerweg 62, 1402 AE Bussum, The Netherlands. voice: x31-35-6933258 FAX: x31-35-6930762 E-mail: aried@xs4all.nl {========================================================================} When reading the works of an important thinker, look first for the apparent absurdities in the text and ask yourself how a sensible person could have written them." T. S. Kuhn, The Essential Tension (1977). =========================================================================== Accept that some days you are the statue, and some days you are the bird. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 17:49:11 BST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Richard Hull Organization: Manchester University and UMIST Subject: Re: Defining technology for educators? In-Reply-To: Dear list and Jude, Jude, I do hope you keep us updated on those debates you mentioned. There is an interesting story, about IT and schools, that is not often told, and should be. >From the early 1980's, in the UK, many schools had small simple computers - the Acorn BBC model - which was easily programmed with BASIC. Many teachers learnt this language, and then developed a whole array of educational software, most of which was geared specifically towards young children, and including a variety of levels. To my mind, that software - and indeed, much of the hardware that went with it (touchscreens, control equipment, LOGO robots, etc), - has still not been improved upon in terms of the ease of use by children, and especially young children and those with learning difficulties. However, as the computers have increased in power and complexity, they have also become more or less impossible to program in that way,. and educational software is now only available commercially (except for some shareware). Moreover, many schools are now tempted towards Microsoft/Intel, arguing (incorrectly, I believe) that children should learn how to use the machines that everyone else uses. This thus confuses two aspects of computers in schools - their use as an aid to learning (and I strongly believe, having worked in schools, that they can in the right configurations and with the right teaching be such an aid); and the requirement that children are 'trained' how to use the technologies they will later encounter. I think that what has happenned in the UK over the last 16 or so years is that a very valuable teaching resource - simple computers, easily programmable by teachers - have been replaced, first by more powerful computers (Acorn felt forced to move in the same direction as the general trajectory for computers), and now increasingly it is MS/Intel being used learning as well as being learnt about. It is a tragedy. The (very basic) moral I'm trying to illustrate here is that discussions of technologies and education need to take account of the social and economic context of those specific technologies. But that contextualisation is highly problematic - I would argue that it requires a variety of ways of understanding the relations between technological and social change, and that is precisely why STS and Innovation studies, in all their manifestations, are so important. For more details see my (nearly out of print) book, 'In Praise of WIMPS: A Social History of Computer Programming - Some work in Progress' (1992). ____________________________________________________________________ Richard Hull CRIC (ESRC Centre for Research on Innovation & Competition) Tom Lupton Suite University Precinct Centre University of Manchester Oxford Road Manchester M13 9QH Tel: +44 (0)161 275 7364 Fax: 7361 email: Richard.Hull@umist.ac.uk ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 11:11:53 -0700 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Charlie Hendricksen Organization: Department of Geography, Univ. of Washington, Seattle Subject: Re: Defining technology for educators? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Richard and Other Friends, I was a bit taken aback by this message. When I think about the good old days I break out in a nervous sweat. The golden days of computing are still before us, not behind us. To be sure the tyranny of the mass market has driven us all into the same corner, but in that corner are better products -- if we choose to adapt to them. Children are much more adaptable than the rest of us. Richard Hull wrote: > Dear list and Jude, > Jude, I do hope you keep us updated on those debates you mentioned. > > There is an interesting story, about IT and schools, that is not > often told, and should be. > From the early 1980's, in the UK, many schools had small simple > computers - the Acorn BBC model - which was easily programmed with > BASIC. Many teachers learnt this language, and then developed a > whole array of educational software, most of which was geared > specifically towards young children, and including a variety of > levels. But BASIC is still around and much improved. Take a look at Visual Basic for creating educational software. > To my mind, that software - and indeed, much of the hardware > that went with it (touchscreens, control equipment, LOGO robots, > etc), - has still not been improved upon in terms of the ease of use > by children, and especially young children and those with learning > difficulties. I will grant you that, but children seem to get along well with the mouse. The graphic user interface does penalize some folks. Speech interfaces will soon be available to solve many of the problems. > However, as the computers have increased in power and > complexity, they have also become more or less impossible to program > in that way,. and educational software is now only available > commercially (except for some shareware). But the quality of that software far exceeds the quality of the home-made software from the good old days. Furthermore, software that writes software (the applications generators) is becoming more widespread -- the WWW in fact is a form of programming that will revolutionize learning and education. > Moreover, many schools are > now tempted towards Microsoft/Intel, arguing (incorrectly, I believe) > that children should learn how to use the machines that everyone else > uses. I am not familiar with the Acorn, but the Macintosh and Windows machines are quite similar now (except for default type face). Apple won the interface war, but we call the winning interface Windows. The economic advantages of wintel clones put any decision to install other machines on the defensive. > This thus confuses two aspects of computers in schools - their > use as an aid to learning (and I strongly believe, having worked in > schools, that they can in the right configurations and with the right > teaching be such an aid); and the requirement that children are > 'trained' how to use the technologies they will later encounter. Again, machines and operating systems have converged to the point that the argument is without significant. > I think that what has happenned in the UK over the last 16 or so > years is that a very valuable teaching resource - simple computers, > easily programmable by teachers - have been replaced, first by more > powerful computers (Acorn felt forced to move in the same > direction as the general trajectory for computers), and now > increasingly it is MS/Intel being used learning as well as > being learnt about. It is a tragedy. I cannot imagine a teacher who would, unless very poorly informed, elect to write software in the old ways. I cannot imagine anyone who would choose to refuse the power that is given the user in the cheapest wintel clones. It is software that makes the difference, and the range of software available for Apple, and I presume Acorn, is not growing at anything like that for the wintel machines. The only thing that is keeping Apple alive now is the established base (sunk investment) of educational software applications. Of great importance is the fact that software written for the WWW is machine independant! > > > The (very basic) moral I'm trying to illustrate here is > that discussions of technologies and education need to take account > of the social and economic context of those specific technologies. > But that contextualisation is highly problematic - I would argue that > it requires a variety of ways of understanding the relations between > technological and social change, and that is precisely why STS and > Innovation studies, in all their manifestations, are so important. > > For more details see my (nearly out of print) book, 'In Praise of > WIMPS: A Social History of Computer Programming - Some work in > Progress' (1992). > > Alas, my University does not have the book. I will have to put in an Interlibrary loan. > ____________________________________________________________________ > Richard Hull > CRIC > (ESRC Centre for Research on Innovation & Competition) > Tom Lupton Suite > University Precinct Centre > University of Manchester > Oxford Road > Manchester M13 9QH > Tel: +44 (0)161 275 7364 Fax: 7361 > email: Richard.Hull@umist.ac.uk > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Charlie Hendricksen veritas@u.washington.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 00:28:26 -0400 Reply-To: email_jill@ibm.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jill Subject: Re: Defining technology for educators? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit PLEASE TAKE ME OFF THIS LIST- THANK YOU ---------- > From: Charlie Hendricksen > To: SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU > Subject: Re: Defining technology for educators? > Date: Friday, September 05, 1997 2:11 PM > > Richard and Other Friends, > I was a bit taken aback by this message. When I think about the good > old days I break out in a nervous sweat. The golden days of computing are > still before us, not behind us. To be sure the tyranny of the mass market > has driven us all into the same corner, but in that corner are better > products -- if we choose to adapt to them. Children are much more adaptable > than the rest of us. > > Richard Hull wrote: > > > Dear list and Jude, > > Jude, I do hope you keep us updated on those debates you mentioned. > > > > There is an interesting story, about IT and schools, that is not > > often told, and should be. > > From the early 1980's, in the UK, many schools had small simple > > computers - the Acorn BBC model - which was easily programmed with > > BASIC. Many teachers learnt this language, and then developed a > > whole array of educational software, most of which was geared > > specifically towards young children, and including a variety of > > levels. > > But BASIC is still around and much improved. Take a look at Visual Basic > for creating educational software. > > > To my mind, that software - and indeed, much of the hardware > > that went with it (touchscreens, control equipment, LOGO robots, > > etc), - has still not been improved upon in terms of the ease of use > > by children, and especially young children and those with learning > > difficulties. > > I will grant you that, but children seem to get along well with the mouse. > The graphic user interface does penalize some folks. Speech interfaces will > soon be available to solve many of the problems. > > > However, as the computers have increased in power and > > complexity, they have also become more or less impossible to program > > in that way,. and educational software is now only available > > commercially (except for some shareware). > > But the quality of that software far exceeds the quality of the home-made > software from the good old days. Furthermore, software that writes software > (the applications generators) is becoming more widespread -- the WWW in fact > is a form of programming that will revolutionize learning and education. > > > Moreover, many schools are > > now tempted towards Microsoft/Intel, arguing (incorrectly, I believe) > > that children should learn how to use the machines that everyone else > > uses. > > I am not familiar with the Acorn, but the Macintosh and Windows machines are > quite similar now (except for default type face). Apple won the interface > war, but we call the winning interface Windows. The economic advantages of > wintel clones put any decision to install other machines on the defensive. > > > This thus confuses two aspects of computers in schools - their > > use as an aid to learning (and I strongly believe, having worked in > > schools, that they can in the right configurations and with the right > > teaching be such an aid); and the requirement that children are > > 'trained' how to use the technologies they will later encounter. > > Again, machines and operating systems have converged to the point that the > argument is without significant. > > > I think that what has happenned in the UK over the last 16 or so > > years is that a very valuable teaching resource - simple computers, > > easily programmable by teachers - have been replaced, first by more > > powerful computers (Acorn felt forced to move in the same > > direction as the general trajectory for computers), and now > > increasingly it is MS/Intel being used learning as well as > > being learnt about. It is a tragedy. > > I cannot imagine a teacher who would, unless very poorly informed, elect to > write software in the old ways. I cannot imagine anyone who would choose to > refuse the power that is given the user in the cheapest wintel clones. It > is software that makes the difference, and the range of software available > for Apple, and I presume Acorn, is not growing at anything like that for the > wintel machines. The only thing that is keeping Apple alive now is the > established base (sunk investment) of educational software applications. Of > great importance is the fact that software written for the WWW is machine > independant! > > > > > > > The (very basic) moral I'm trying to illustrate here is > > that discussions of technologies and education need to take account > > of the social and economic context of those specific technologies. > > But that contextualisation is highly problematic - I would argue that > > it requires a variety of ways of understanding the relations between > > technological and social change, and that is precisely why STS and > > Innovation studies, in all their manifestations, are so important. > > > > For more details see my (nearly out of print) book, 'In Praise of > > WIMPS: A Social History of Computer Programming - Some work in > > Progress' (1992). > > > > > > Alas, my University does not have the book. I will have to put in an > Interlibrary loan. > > > ____________________________________________________________________ > > Richard Hull > > CRIC > > (ESRC Centre for Research on Innovation & Competition) > > Tom Lupton Suite > > University Precinct Centre > > University of Manchester > > Oxford Road > > Manchester M13 9QH > > Tel: +44 (0)161 275 7364 Fax: 7361 > > email: Richard.Hull@umist.ac.uk > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -- > Charlie Hendricksen veritas@u.washington.edu ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 7 Sep 1997 09:33:41 -0400 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: Defining technology for educators? X-To: email_jill@ibm.net MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jill wrote: [snip] > ---------- > > From: Charlie Hendricksen > > To: SCIENCE-AS-CULTURE@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU > > Subject: Re: Defining technology for educators? > > Date: Friday, September 05, 1997 2:11 PM > > > > Richard and Other Friends, > > I was a bit taken aback by this message. When I think about the good > > old days I break out in a nervous sweat. The golden days of computing > are > > still before us, not behind us. To be sure the tyranny of the mass > market > > has driven us all into the same corner, but in that corner are better > > products -- if we choose to adapt to them. Children are much more > adaptable > > than the rest of us. > > > > Richard Hull wrote: > > > > > Dear list and Jude, > > > Jude, I do hope you keep us updated on those debates you mentioned. > > > > > > There is an interesting story, about IT and schools, that is not > > > often told, and should be. > > > From the early 1980's, in the UK, many schools had small simple > > > computers - the Acorn BBC model - which was easily programmed with > > > BASIC. Many teachers learnt this language, and then developed a > > > whole array of educational software, most of which was geared > > > specifically towards young children, and including a variety of > > > levels. > > > > But BASIC is still around and much improved. Take a look at Visual Basic > > for creating educational software. [snip] I haven't taken a look at Visual Basic, but my guess would be that it's probably a lot more complex than the original, command line oriented Basic, and, even if it is possible for normal human beings to use it (unlike Java, C++, etc.), what it does is probably so "powerful" that there is little palpable connection between what a kid or teacher programming with it codes and the perhaps gee-whiz results they get (In the end it makes you feel small). "Personal" computers have become so complex that, even as a person with 25 years programming experience (including having written a part of the "guts" of IBM's most sophisticated operating system of the late 1970s (MVS/370)) I find I cannot figure out how to write programs for my personal computer. Of course I *could* learn how to, but it would take a lot more time and effort and energy than I have available, and the results would be discouraging since what I would learn would be mostly un-intuitive dissociated datae of an unending cacophony of "APIs" (Application Programming Interfaces) for one operating system or another (Macs are "easy" only if you don't try to program them!). There are exceptions, like Perl, and, so far, HTML. But I look forward with dread to the forthcoming "enhancements" to HTML which will make it far more complicated -- you'll have to know far more facts to use it --, but which still will not provide the conceptual *power* of SGML (Standard Generalized Markup Language). The self-appointed secular priests of the "object-oriented" (etc.) computer world are indeed continuing to construct an ersatz "virtual" cosmology as remote from life as that of the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle Ages, with the main difference that the limit of their power to impose their will on others is unemployment rather than immolation. A truly human(e) social world is one in which every object and social relation transparently shows to everyone the grounds and mechanism through which it nurtures each individual's well being in the context of a social organization all of the processes of which transparently manifest their commitment to the further advancement of that goal. If that sounds too "technical", I can restate it as follows: A genuinely human(e) social world is one in which every person all the time feels "I am safe here, and I am supported in my efforts to play, explore, and to try to contribute to making things even better and safer for everyone." Computer scientists do not contribute to real progress by producing faster and smaller gizmos, but rather by applying gizmos (and heart and mind and voice and hand...) to this effort (what the great philosopher, Edmund Husserl, called the true and infinite task of humanity). Joseph Weizenbaum long ago pointed out that the computer has been one of the most powerful forces for social reaction in the 20th century by enabling established bureaucracies (and, I would add, now new ones, like HMOs) to continue to do business as usual when the volume of information to be processed exceeded what could be handled by human clerks, and therefore, without computers there would have had to be a reorganization of *social relations*. In the meantime, and until somebody "improves" them to the point of incomprehensibility, "God bless" Perl and the simple HTML that can enable teachers and children and others to make something with the computer that they can understand and share with their colleagues. -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / bradmcc@cloud9.net (914)238-0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA ------------------------------------------------------- Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 10:29:22 -0400 Reply-To: Jiri Wackermann Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jiri Wackermann Subject: Re: Defining technology for educators? MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Dear Richard and all listed folks, I see Richard Hull (Fri, 5 Sep 1997 17:49:11 BST) touched a significant point deserving intensive attention and extensive discussion: "From the early 1980's, in the UK, many schools had small simple computers..." [etc, I suppose you have the text in its entirety, so I will avoid citations]. Then Charlie Hendricksen replied that "The golden days of computing are still before us, not behind us." and manifested his happiness with Visual Basic, children mastering mouse control, the advent of speech interfaces etc. Brad McCormick, in a quite different tune, took Richard's argument seriously, giving clear examples of where the mainstream of computing technology takes us with. Now I can see there are several, interconnected but distinct lines of reasoning and argumentation in this debate. I have about 15 years of programming experience in both scientific computing and commercial software development, I gave series of basic courses of computing years ago, and I'm vividly interested in the social and cultural impact of computing, so I feel to qualify, in all modesty, to contribute to the discussion. First, I'd like to attempt clarification of the basic conceptual issues. Let's distinguish. We can speak either about [1] use of computers the educational process (Richard's starting point), or about [2] benefits and pitfalls of technological progress (points taken by Charlie and Brad), or to attempt [3] a definition of the actual state of our technological civilisation and of the role played by computers and information technologies in general. It would be temptating to start with [3], to elaborate this point to some depth and then to draw consequences for [1]. Unfortunately, this would call for a monograph. (Sure, Richard, I will try to find out your book in the University Library.) So I cannot but compress my opinions to few aphoristic items: [i] There are two aspects of computers usage in schools. First, raised by Richard, is (design and creation and availability of) the educational software. I see the problem and don't deny its importance; it's not at the very center of the "computers in school" problem, anyway. We could, in theory, imagine that there would be a lot of good educational software available for any discipline, from history of ideas down to cosmology; or that schools could afford to employ high quality software developers to write educational tools to their specification. (I guess that Charlie in his devotion to modern development tools can imagine world like that.) All this isn't but a phantasy, but even then the heart of the problem wouldn't be tackled. The problem is elsewhere: ***What shall the children do with the computers in their lessons?*** [ii] If the computers should serve as "information presentation facilities" (sorry, I borrowed this ugly term from IBM's newspeak), running the educational software, than these weren't more than a kind of "interactive video" or "educational game console" --- something towards the "personal" or "family" computers seem to degenerate anyway. (I hear the prophets of brave new computing world loudly applauding: that's it, a computer for "anyone". See below, point [x].) What makes the computer such a terrific platform for education is not the graphics; it is not the sound; it is not the user interface (which, instead, may turn into a real obstacle). It is the programmability what makes the computer, since Babbage's steam-driven machine to Pentium. More specifically, it is the fact that programming provides facilities to extract and model essential properties of the sector of world under interest what makes programmable computer such a powerful tool at all. An example: you explain the behavior of pendulum in the course of elementary physics. If all you need is to show to the student a swinging pendulum---along with the formula for the period of oscillations---you need no computer; a video-tape could do the same job. But even if you have your pendulum lesson programmed and visualized on a computer, you still may misuse the machine and degrade it to a desktop cinema. The crucial point is that you can write a numerical solution of the equation governing the pendulum movement and get it plotted and let the student vary the parameters. Then the student can get a feel how it works; he/she may verify the isochronicity of the pendulum at small amplitudes; and plot the deviations from the isochronic period at large amplitudes. Then you may introduce the notion of non-linear oscillations; then the student may move to the next lesson... I firmly believe ***this*** is what distinguishes the good computer educational software from the poor one, not TrueColor displays and transparent GIF overlays and stuff like that. Charlie, frankly, what makes in your opinion "the quality of that software far exceeding the quality of the home-made software from the good old days"? [iii] Thus, a good educational software should exploit this capability of computers at maximum. What we need rather than a sophisticated interface, is the ability ***to program the physics*** of the problem down to the system and see what's going on. Thus, until now we were speaking about teachers programming their lessons, but the medium should be simple enough to be transparent for both teachers and students. Only then they will be able to communicate at the very problem and to evolve the solutions interactively and iteratively. In this context, I can only agree with Richard and Brad: what naive---no offense!---programmers need are simple tools as Basic was or as interpreted languages of today are: I'm not sure whether Perl is the right stuff, may be because of lack of practical experience. I think plurality of tools should be encouraged; say, Awk for text file processing, C in a suitable form (I find Cenvi quite nice) for general programming, perhaps Perl to build further, up to interprocess communication.) [iv] Back to information presentation: that's what HTML and WWW are about. Brad is definitely true in his observation that "the forthcoming ``enhancements`` to HTML which will make it far more complicated". Sure; compare the modest and transparent beginnings of HTML at the very beginning in academic circles to its current state; all the "extensions" and "enhancements" are enforced by software industry, by the producers of new and newest viewers. The result is a terrible mess of "features", with one obvious objective: still haven't the newest Blablah viewer, enabled for X.Y revision? then you won't be able to see the terrific visual effects on this page (you won't see anything, after all)! download just now! It's worth of notice that the appraised enhancements generally go one direction: to make the documents more and more visually appealing, attractive as a multimedial show, addictive as a "shoot'em" computer game. The very essence of the enterprise---creation and management of an extensible manifold of documents, organized as a directed graph made of nodes=pages and edges=links---got obscured. And a command of good taste and sober design has gone, too. "Visual editors" of HTML documents and generators of presentations and all that may seem attractive to some users; they may even appear practical where design time and effort is the issue. But as far as they serve merely to produce better---read: more effects---entertainment and advertisement, I fail to see how all this could contribute to the wellfare of any single person, not speaking about mankind. Welfare of software companies, oh yes, sure. [v] And back again to the basic question: what should the students do in their computer lessons? Now I'm not speaking about physics (perhaps the easiest example) or psychology (more difficult, but let them to arrange their own experiments on displays, selective reaction time, just for fun...) or any mediation of non-computing stuff through the computer. Now I'm asking: how can computing as such be mediated through the computer? I'm not aware of situation in other countries; but as for Czechia (it's where I'm living), the current state is quite sad. Children attending secondary school are given courses in Windows based text editors; the most enlightened techers think they should give "internet skills" to their students (what does it mean, Netscape?). This is what people generally thinks about as "preparation for the everyday life". I guess this confusion rules elsewhere, too, from Richards statement "many schools are now tempted towards Microsoft/Intel, arguing [...] children should learn how to use the machines that everyone else uses. This thus confuses two aspects of computers in schools - their use as an aid to learning [...]; and the requirement that children are 'trained' how to use the technologies they will later encounter." We have treated computer aided education in previous paragraphs, so let's go on with the second line of argument. Is it really the task of the school to prepare children for life like that? Going down to the greasy reality, should children "learn" that Alt+F4 "means" to close a running application? Of course NOT! And we are fools that we allow our children to be treated in such a way. What would you say to a basic school math teacher which did his/her duties deliberately limited to learn the children how to operate a hand-held calculator? Or to a high school teacher of physics who would explain how to switch a TV set on/off, instead of telling about them about electromagnetic waves? I still believe---perhaps I'm desperately old-fashioned reactionary egg-shaped head, but I still do--- that it's the task of the school to learn the children about the ***principles*** of how the world works. That's not all, of course; it should stimulate the curiosity to get know how the world works; and to wake up the creativity to find ways how the world works; and to provide a framework of values to anchor all this enterprise in a firm ground. Or else it wouldn't be but a preparatory course to become a desk clerk, or a desktop computer technician, or a liftboy, or an automated lift technician, or... I don't think we should to learn the children how to write programs; not at all. This is not much further from a qualified technician coming with his screwer or ampermeter to a broken computer or lift. I argue that we should to provide them the access to the hidden power of the computer (in the sense explained ad [ii-iii]), that is, to participate at the process and merging the teaching and learning process into a singular project. This, at the very beginning, would probably need quite different aids than traditional programming languages; I think Logo was an attempt in such a direction. For older children, a good old basic with some graphing capabilities was good enough.---But I still do care of plurality and integration and insist that the students should be aware of the plenitude of approaches and paradigms, ranging from, say, that immortal Basic, over small nice things like Forth and Lisp, and small scripting languages designed for special purpose (pictures or chemical formulas) to higher level like sh-like command interpreters or text processors like Awk and Perl. --- (At any rate, beware of "visual" paradigm; see below, section [vi]). [vi] Now, let's talk the interface. The graphical user interfaces (GUI) were appraised as a true benefit, for the sake of user's happiness. Are they, really? I prefer to type a command at the prompt, rather than to point and click to some (often hardly to recognize) graphic object, icon or button. You may suspect that's because of my heritage of RSX-11and MS-DOS and Unix's Bourne shell. But my wife has no such prehistory; she came to computers when PC & Windows won the game; and she still hates the mouse games and prefers software controled by simple single-stroke keyboard commands. You see, not everybody is able to experience the superior good given us by Redmond gods. But there's something more serious. Imagine a piece of software where you can type at a program command prompt "open myfile.doc", or perhaps to hit "o" and get a prompt "file name: " and type "myfile.doc" or anything like that. Well, that style is rare nowadays.---The modern GUI style with their menus and dialog boxes generally enforce passivity on the user's side. In a typical case, to open a file, you click at main menu item, "File"; a menu appears, you click at "Open"; the menu is dismissed, and a dialog box opens, so you finally can type the name of the file; even worse, you can struggle with a couple of listboxes to locate the directory you wish and to locate the file. The esential difference is that with the former software you have to have the concept ahead; you have to know that (1) files exists, (2) a file needs to be open, and (3) the right command for that is "open somename". With the latter software, you always wait for the offer: you can do this or that. You needn't to keep anything in your head; you only have to possess some skill with the mouse. The problem is that if the software doesn't force you to make a mental concept of what you want to do, you probably won't have any. If you have, you'll be frustrated and impatient with GUI; if you have none, the GUI is no guarantee that you won't make a nonsense. The things go worse than that. Selecting from menus, going through the sequence "File", "Open", "myfile.doc", "OK", you still are talking some broken English, but it's a language, anyway. Now, "object oriented" or "document-centric" (IBM's newspeak again) extremists decided that you would be even more happy if you could to click at a picture of a file to open a file. Or to double click a telephone icon to get a dial-up connection. This is and "verbal" vs "visual" paradigm The progressivists say that this is a great achievement. You needn't memorize commands. You even needn't understand a single word. They say it's intuitive. They say it's international. But come to a user of such a system when he/she get's into a trouble, and you'll find that he/she won't be able to tell you what the problem is. No, he/she needn't to figure out what the problem is; anyway, he/she should be able to describe the problem in plain words, but very often is not. What you get is a rather pre-verbal, infantil expression: "Hey, I want to do this... " (click) "and then..." (click) "and to move that overthere" (attempting to drag&drop) "and there is, hmmm, nothing." Pale face, gazing at the screen, with the sleazy mouse in a sweating palm, the user is like an autistic child; doesn't tell "mum, give me the apple", simply takes mama's hand to move it in the wished direction. Is this human interface? Writing this, I don't want to offend anyone. This is a simple consequence of the fact that users of such terrific intuitive, graphics based, non-verbal interfaces simply lack ANY basic concepts that would allow them to express their wishes, intentions or plans. Whatever the progressivist think or say, in my opinion it's a clear sign of ***regression*** back from the level achieved thousands years ago. Summarizing: GUIs are enforcing passivity, destroying grammar, limiting your contact to the system just to the "interface", fragmenting it into visual cues. A really human interface should encourage activity, allow to specify one's commands and queries in a structured manner, even if under restrictions of a grammar, to make the contact vivid and immediate, employing a meaningful verbalisation as the most natural way of expression. In this sense, old command line interface was a lot closer to human interfaces [vii] Speech interfaces? Oh yes. Now we are back to the issue. Then the spoken word rules again. Just allow me one question, what will that be used for. Something like VoiceType technology built into the last edition of OS/2 Warp (aka Merlin)? You really think the dictation is the progress? Then you turned the computer into a stupid but patient secretary; no more, no less (I'd prefer a clever even if impatient human assistant able to master command line interface). Whispering to the microphone, "Wake up. Go Internet.", does THIS make you happy? I don't think so. Speech interface is important if and only if it is a ***humane language*** interface---whether it's typed in or spelled out, doesn't play major role. The translation from sound waves is not much interesting from the intellectual point of view---it's merely engineering (again, no offense!). What is interesting is the parsing process; recognition of ambiguities; context-dependency etc. And, again, in computer lessons the students should be allowed to go with and operate the system and play games with it, but without being involved into the machinery. As long as it requires to read descriptions of low-level system calls and to understand all those control and notification messages etc. to be able to decypher the voice input, sorry, no. The human concept starts with a sentence which is a logical structure of tokens. [viii] The source of misunderstanding: some people say "you need not" when they should say "you cannot". Really, not only you needn't memorize commands; there is nothing to memorize, even if you wanted. If someone tells you you get more freedom disobeying the rules of English grammar, you will call him a fool and you will be right. (Don't blame me because of MY grammar flaws, please; English is not my native language; I'm doing my best.) But this is what we're told years ago, with each dubious innovation. "You needn't learn commands any more... you needn't understand your file system any more... you needn't to program the machine... just sit back, relax... play... enjoy..." In fact, you can't lear commands as there are no commands to type; there is no place where to type them; there is no interpreter; there is an infinite loop catching the messages generated all the time by your moving mouse, hitting a key, clicking at the title bar... You hardly can program such a machine, as you are embraced by the machinery of "event-driven" programming, whether you want or not. And even if you can resist all this and you're happy to write a program which behaves in a reasonable way, ignoring most of the bells and whistles---will anyone want to use the program, except of you? Chances are odd. The population has been massaged by computer journalists for years. Everybody can come and tell you "this is not the way things are done TODAY!" And, remember, young people are learned that there is a indispensable component of a computer named Windows95, without which the machine can't be run, and that the right way of stopping a program is to press Alt+F4. This is called "progress". [ix] There were days when programming was funny and rewarding experience. Frustrating, sure, was it too; but even then it was a great experience to recognize the cause of the error; to remove it; to enforce the sense of logic by eliminating one's own thoughtless construction and quick-and-dirty code. Esthetic feelings played their proper role, too. And there was a bit of moral in each fixed bug; one got to know that nobody was flawless and no one could be right all the time. Believe or not, Charlie, these ***were*** good old days. I don't say it was a golden age but it surely was better than what we have today. There were times when you learned three dozens keywords in C and you could start; you learned few dozens of library functions and systems calls and you could write a full-fleshed application, useful to you, to the colleague near to you, well, perhaps to a larger community. Now that we're living in the Brave New World, things are quite different. Anyone who started with programming in the good old days and was forced to write a windowed, event-driven application along the guidelines of the new paradigm will agree that it's a terribly frustrating, annoying, boring and exhausting job. There are hundreds of system calls, "cacophony of APIs" in Brad's words, poorly documented and sometimes changing from version to version or disappearing at all. There are thousands of "mnemonic" symbols invented by the teams of designers. There are faulty and difficult to manage editors of graphic resources. Etc. etc. I tried to find my way through this jungle, in the hope that I would finally able to write programs conforming to nowadays standards. Oops; this took several months and then I decided that I better withdraw from commercial programming and stay with development of tools for internal use (including the community of users of our older DOS-based products). This may kill my company in one or two years; or may not; fortunately, the community recruits from a tiny segment of neuroscience research, and these people typically care more about functionality than style. At any rate, I wonder what these changes brought to thousands of small companies and independent, self-employed programmers and computer experts who were the salt of the earth. For them it must be a Goetterdaemerung, too, I guess. And, get it from me: in old good days, the constituent element of programming was creativity. Today, the main job is putting a glue code among myriads of API calls, in a perverse, masochistic, slave spirit. You might be happy with this if you're that kind of person which is happy to stand where you were told to stand, and to do things you were told to do in a way you were told to do. (I suppose that participants at this mail list are not made of such stuff. Now I realize that I have, quite unconsciously, cited the Unabomber's Manifesto, but the very fact doesn't change anything on the rationale of the argument.) Thus, to oppose Charlie's argument: "I cannot imagine who would, unless very poorly informed, elect to write software in the old ways.", I have to say "I cannot imagine anyone who would, unless very poorly informed and/or being of totally slavish mind, decide to write software is it has to be written now." Brad is right: "In the end it makes you feel small". [x] I can't avoid a bold statement here: ***the computing industry makes a lot of non-sense***. While majority thoughtlessly applauds the "progress" of the computing technology, the bare facts are that -- computing degenerates to "computainment" -- logic of intelligible relationships gets replaced by mosaic of audiovisual coincidences -- sequential organization of elaborated argument is suppressed by a simultaneity ("paralellism") of fragmentary, apodictically presented information -- verbalisation as natural medium of expression is superseded by voyeurism and gesture If we don't take this discussion seriously and draw practical consequences, the process will continue to the asymptote of ultimate stupidisation (in German: Verbloedung). The Microsoft people and the computer journalists pretend all this brings a lot of good to the mankind; don't believe their propaganda. Someone should resist the trend and keep islands of "positive deviations" alive. I think that schools are the places to begin with; and I wish we succeed on a long-term scale. Otherwise, you and me will not understand anything few years later---and your and my children will move and act in a virtual environment, a world transformed into a huge multimedial clip. Until it comes, have a nice day. --- Jiri P.S. Sorry for the length of the essay; it has grown under my hands until I realized what was going on. I won't apologize for occassional exaggerations and somewhat apocalyptic tone; I think it's adequate to the significance of the topics. ------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Jiri Wackermann Neuroscience Technology Research s.r.o. 26, Zitna Street, CZ-12000 Prague 2 Czech Republic phone/fax: (+420 2) 496626 [good thru Sep 30, then change to (+420 2) 24915461] e-mail: jwntr@terminal.cz ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 9 Sep 1997 00:00:47 +0900 Reply-To: lsping@bigfoot.com Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: LUO Shengping Subject: Help please!!! MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Can anyone tell me how to leave this list? I lost my subscription mail and don't know to send my unsubscribe message to what address? Thank you in advance. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 8 Sep 1997 15:42:08 -0400 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: Defining technology for educators? X-To: Jiri Wackermann MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jiri Wackermann wrote a long and thoughtful posting, which I presume everyone has received, including: > [snip] > [x] I can't avoid a bold statement here: ***the computing industry makes a lot of non-sense***. > While majority thoughtlessly applauds the "progress" of the computing technology, the bare facts are that > -- computing degenerates to "computainment" > -- logic of intelligible relationships gets replaced by mosaic of audiovisual coincidences > -- sequential organization of elaborated argument is suppressed by a simultaneity ("paralellism") > of fragmentary, apodictically presented information > -- verbalisation as natural medium of expression is superseded by voyeurism and gesture > If we don't take this discussion seriously and draw practical consequences, the process will > continue to the asymptote of ultimate stupidisation (in German: Verbloedung). The Microsoft people and > the computer journalists pretend all this brings a lot of good to the mankind; don't believe their propaganda. > Someone should resist the trend and keep islands of "positive deviations" alive. I think that schools are > the places to begin with; and I wish we succeed on a long-term scale. Otherwise, you and me will not > understand anything few years later---and your and my children will move and act in a virtual environment, > a world transformed into a huge multimedial clip. [snip] > I won't apologize for occassional exaggerations and somewhat apocalyptic tone; I think it's adequate > to the significance of the topics. [snip] While reading Jiri's posting (which is "too much" to try to respond to in any detail, here), one thought came to mind, in connection with such things as "command line interfaces" versus GUI: APL. I once worked in IBM Research. I was told that at one time they had a group of programmers (probably mostly Fortran...) whose job was to write the programs the physicists and chemists needed. Then, along came APL, and the physicists and chemists started writing their own programs (because APL was both easy and *appealing* to them to use), and they no longer needed the professional programmers to do programming for them. Now there's an example of real *computer empowerment* for you. APL is a beautiful system. You can do amazing things with it in a few symbols. It's totally "unnatural", and command line oriented, but, for a mathematically-minded person, those unnatural symbols are far more congenial than "object oriented" stuff, etc., and the fact that the thing isn't GUI is irrelevant. And, as long as we're talking about computers in schools, I'd bet that a lot of kids would find APL highly intriguing -- mathematical constructivism in action! -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / bradmcc@cloud9.net (914)238-0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA ------------------------------------------------------- Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 14 Sep 1997 21:28:14 -0400 Reply-To: bradmcc@cloud9.net Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "Brad McCormick, Ed.D." Organization: AbiCo. Subject: Re: Defining technology for educators? X-To: Jiri Wackermann MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Jiri Wackermann wrote: [snip] > [ix] There were days when programming was funny and rewarding experience. Frustrating, sure, > was it too; but even then it was a great experience to recognize the cause of the error; to remove it; > to enforce the sense of logic by eliminating one's own thoughtless construction and quick-and-dirty code. > Esthetic feelings played their proper role, too. And there was a bit of moral in each fixed bug; one got > to know that nobody was flawless and no one could be right all the time. [snip] > Now that we're living in the Brave New World, things are quite different. Anyone who started > with programming in the good old days and was forced to write a windowed, event-driven application > along the guidelines of the new paradigm will agree that it's a terribly frustrating, annoying, boring and > exhausting job. There are hundreds of system calls, "cacophony of APIs" in Brad's words, poorly > documented and sometimes changing from version to version or disappearing at all. There are thousands > of "mnemonic" symbols invented by the teams of designers. There are faulty and difficult to manage > editors of graphic resources. Etc. etc. [snip] I'd like to make another comment confirming Jiri's posting, in response to an experience I had a couple days ago: I have Microsoft Visual C++ 5. I have a little program I'd written a while ago, to which I decided I wanted to make an enhancement (a simple notepad facility). I did succeed in making the change, but I made the following striking observation about the process: I didn't directly add the new function to the program. Rather: I invoked a (tellingly named:) "Wizard" to add the necessary hooks into the program, and then I inserted my code where the wizard-added code told me to put it. The point is that, as Jiri said, in past, a person wrote programs; now a person asks an inscrutable Wizard to do things which then the person "customizes" to produce the desired function. The worst problem with all this is that the "customization" code is all a bunch of API calls which there is no conceivable way anybody could guess, but which need to be learned by rote (I knew part of what I needed before I started my adventure; I consulted 2 books on Windows MFC programming, and several pieces of online documentation to figure out the rest). If this is the wave of the future, it is, as I have said before, a kind of mumbo-jumbo, which differs from the cosmology of the Roman Catholic Church of the middle ages only in terms of being (to use a pun:) *nominally* secular rather than sacred. But no way does it approximate to the ideal of transparency of the Logos (from Parmenides to Husserl). "Incomprehensible programs", as Joseph Weizenbaum described the problem in _Computer Power and Human Reason: From Judgment to Calculation_ (Freeman, 1978?). -- Mankind is not the master of all the stuff that exists, but Everyman (woman, child) is a judge of the world. Brad McCormick, Ed.D. / bradmcc@cloud9.net (914)238-0788 / 27 Poillon Rd, Chappaqua, NY 10514-3403 USA ------------------------------------------------------- Visit my website ==> http://www.cloud9.net/~bradmcc/ ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 14:53:39 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: New book by Donna Haraway Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Book announcement: Donna Haraway _Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium. FemaleMan.=A9Meets OncoMouse=81 Feminism and Technoscience_ This ground breaking book explores the roles of stories, figures, dreams, theories, facts, delusions, advertising, institutions, economic arrangements, publishing practices, scientific advances and politics in twentieth- century technoscience. The book's title is an e-mail address. With it, Haraway locates herself and her readers in a sprawling net of associations more far-flung than the Internet. The address is not a cozy home. There is no innocent place to stand in the world where the book's author figure, FemaleMan, encounters DuPont's controversial laboratory rodent, OncoMouse. Haraway sees the world of contemporary technoscience as a drama. Information sciences and life sciences are at the center of the dramatic action. Scenes are set in landscapes where maps of human genetic differences are stored in databases, racialized bodies are reconfigured by morphing for photographs in popular magazines, and transgenic mice important to breast cancer research are patented intellectual property. The actors are many, and not all are human. Beginning with the Modest Witness, the key figure in the Science Revolution, Haraway shows us the trouble lurking in race and gender-marked practices for attesting to matters of fact. In later scenes, Haraway explores the kinship relations among the many cyborg creatures produced in the late twentieth-century - in nuclear research, genetic engineering, reproductive technologies, computer-mediated representational practices, and mutations in biological approaches to "race." Routledge, 1996: 388 pp: 35 illus Hb: 0 415 91244 X $65.00 =A345.00 Pb: 0 415 91245 8 $18.95 =A314.99 [Can. Hb $90.95; Pb $26.95] Also by Donna Haraway: _Primate Visions Gender, Race and Nature in the World of Modern Science_ . Routledge, 1990: 486pp Pb: 0 415 90294 0 $19.95 =A340.00 [Can. Pb $27.95 _Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature_ N. Y., Routledge/ London, Free Association Books, 1991 I have written an extended essay on the significance of her work: 'Science, Ideology & Donna Haraway', which is at my web site. Bob Young __________________________________________ In making a personal reply, please put in Subject line: Message for Bob Youn= g Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk or r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk, 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ, Eng. tel.+44 171 607 8306 fax.+44 171 609 4837 Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, University of Sheffield. Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ Process Press publications: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/process_press/index.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 14:15:40 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Re: New book by Donna Haraway X-cc: Robert Maxwell Young , "Paul R. Gross" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII >From the New Devil's Dictionary (with the deepest genuflection to Ambrose Bierce): GROUNDBREAKING adj. (see also PATHBREAKING) --- From "ground" (as warrant, evidence, &c), and "breaking" (as savaging, violating). Ungrounded in logic, fact, plausibility, or mere coherence. When used of an academic book, the most severe possible denunciation of the wastage of trees sacrificed to its production. On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Robert Maxwell Young wrote: > Book announcement: Donna Haraway > _Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium. > FemaleMan.=A9Meets OncoMouse=81 > Feminism and Technoscience_ > > This ground breaking book explores the roles of stories, figures, > dreams, theories, facts, delusions, advertising, institutions, economic > arrangements, publishing practices, scientific advances and politics in > twentieth- century technoscience. The book's title is an e-mail address. > With it, Haraway locates herself and her readers in a sprawling net of > associations more far-flung than the Internet. The address is not a cozy > home. There is no innocent place to stand in the world where the book's > author figure, FemaleMan, encounters DuPont's controversial laboratory > rodent, OncoMouse. > Haraway sees the world of contemporary technoscience as a drama. > Information sciences and life sciences are at the center of the dramatic > action. Scenes are set in landscapes where maps of human genetic > differences are stored in databases, racialized bodies are > reconfigured by morphing for photographs in popular magazines, and > transgenic mice important to breast cancer > research are patented intellectual property. The actors are many, > and not all are human. > Beginning with the Modest Witness, the key figure in the > Science Revolution, Haraway shows > us the trouble lurking in race and gender-marked practices for attesting to > matters of fact. In later scenes, > Haraway explores the kinship relations among the many cyborg > creatures produced in the late twentieth-century - in nuclear research, > genetic engineering, reproductive > technologies, computer-mediated representational practices, and mutations > in biological approaches to "race." > Routledge, 1996: 388 pp: 35 illus > Hb: 0 415 91244 X $65.00 =A345.00 > Pb: 0 415 91245 8 $18.95 =A314.99 > [Can. Hb $90.95; Pb $26.95] > > Also by Donna Haraway: > _Primate Visions > Gender, Race and Nature in the > World of Modern Science_ > . > Routledge, 1990: 486pp > Pb: 0 415 90294 0 $19.95 =A340.00 > [Can. Pb $27.95 > > _Simians, Cyborgs and Women: The Reinvention of Nature_ > N. Y., Routledge/ London, Free Association Books, 1991 > > I have written an extended essay on the significance of her work: 'Science, > Ideology & Donna Haraway', which is at my web site. > > Bob Young > > > > > > > __________________________________________ > In making a personal reply, please put in Subject line: Message for Bob Youn= > g > Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk or > r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk, 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ, Eng. tel.+44 > 171 607 8306 fax.+44 171 609 4837 Professor of Psychotherapy and > Psychoanalytic Studies, Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, University of > Sheffield. > Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ > Process Press publications: > http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/process_press/index.html > 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus > ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 23 Sep 1997 15:46:09 BST Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Jon Agar Subject: Manchester University seminars 1997 X-To: mersenne@mailbase.ac.uk, h-sci-med-tech@h-net.msu.edu, sts@cctr.umkc.edu Centre for History of Science, Technology and Medicine and Wellcome Unit for the History of Medicine, Manchester University Seminar Programme First semester 1997-98 4.00pm Tuesdays (unless marked by a *) 7 October 1997 Rima Apple (Wisconsin) 'Between woman and physician: a chapter in the history of 20th century medical practice' * 8 October 1997 History of Medicine Lecture Professor Ian Isherwood, Emeritus Professor of Diagnostic Radiology (Manchester) 'J.J. Thomson and 100 Years of the electron: contributions to medicine' 14 October 1997 Chandak Sengoopta (Wellcome Institute, London) 'The glandular feminine: the science of woman and the discourse of glands, 1890-1930' 21 October 1997 Thomas Kaiserfeld (Stockholm and Manchester) 'Saltpetre in Sweden in the 18th century: a research project and some of its contexts' 28 October 1997 Ben Marsden (University of Kent at Canterbury) 'Fighting cruelty: Lewis Gompertz and the Animals' Friend Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals' 5 November 1997 Ben Shephard (Bristol) 'Aping warlords: the career of Solly Zuckerman, 1939-1945' 11 November 1997 Brian Balmer (UCL) 'Making threats: expert advice on the British biological weapons programme since 1945' 18 November 1997 Marc Berg (Maastricht) 'Practices of reading and writing: the quest for the electronic medical record' 25 November 1997 Andy Warwick (Imperial College) 'Making sense of Maxwell's Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism in mid-Victorian Cambridge' 2 December 1997 James Vernon (Manchester) '"For Some Queer Reason": The Trials and Tribulations of Colonel Barker and the Regulation of the Sexual in Inter-war Britain' 9 December 1997 Hilary Marland (Warwick) 'Patient doctors: explaining and treating puerperal insanity in the 19th century' 16 December 1997 Jon Hodge (Leeds) 'Biology and philosophy (including ideology): the case of Sewall Wright revisited' Seminars in Room 3.29, 3rd Floor, Maths Tower, Manchester University, Oxford Road, Manchester Tea from 3.30pm, Room 3.04 Enquiries: Jon Agar, Room 3.33, agar@fs4.ma.man.ac.uk Mark Jackson, Room 3.36, jackson@fs4.ma.man.ac.uk ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 25 Sep 1997 11:09:33 +0100 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Robert Maxwell Young Subject: McDonnell Fellowships Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" James S. McDonnell Centennial Fellowships -------------------------------------------- The James S. McDonnell Foundation will award up to 10 $1,000,000 research fellowships to early career scientists and scholars. The fellowships will be awarded across five areas: astrophysics and cosmology human cognition global and complex systems human genetics history and philosophy of science Applications are due December 15, 1997. All information and application guidelines are available at www.jsmf.org or can be obtained via email by contacting centennial@jsmf.org, or by writing Centennial Fellowship Program, James S. McDonnell Foundation, 1034 South Brentwood Blvd, Suite 1850, Saint Louis, MO 63117 USA. Susan M. Fitzpatrick, Ph.D. Program Officer James S. McDonnell Fdn 1034 South Brentwood Blvd, Suite 1850 St. Louis, Mo 63117 email: susan@jsmf.org http://www.jsmf.org __________________________________________ In making a personal reply, please put in Subject line: Message for Bob Young Robert Maxwell Young: robert@rmy1.demon.co.uk or r.m.young@sheffield.ac.uk, 26 Freegrove Rd., London N7 9RQ, Eng. tel.+44 171 607 8306 fax.+44 171 609 4837 Professor of Psychotherapy and Psychoanalytic Studies, Centre for Psychotherapeutic Studies, University of Sheffield. Home page and writings: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/ Process Press publications: http://www.shef.ac.uk/~psysc/process_press/index.html 'One must imagine Sisyphus happy.' - Camus ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 22:26:21 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Norman Levitt Subject: Bricmont-Sokal Book MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII FYI ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Dear Norm, Alan Sokal + Jean Bricmont, "Impostures intellectuelles", Editions Odile Jacob (15 rue Soufflot, Paris), 140 FF English version currently in preparation. Feel free to advertise it. It got a big splash in the 9/25 issue of Le Nouvel Observateur: it was the cover story ("Les intellectuels francais sont-ils des imposteurs?") and got 7 pages inside. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 27 Sep 1997 23:50:21 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Olayinka Fadahunsi Subject: Sokal affair fizzles Sokal's point about post-modern dialectic gibberish was well-made, yet I am curious about the thoughts of other students of culture on the whole Social Text issue. It seems like the academic pantheon have monopolised the discussion, effectively splitting into the two predictable camps. Where are the scientists who can see the kernel of truth in some of the science studies criticisms? Where are the cultural observers who are diametrically opposed to Bruce Robbins and Andrew Ross? This lack of independent thought seems to have eroded any signs of interest from the general media. Yay/Nay? ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 01:36:43 -0400 Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Greg Ransom Subject: Re: Sokal affair fizzles In a message dated 97-09-28 01:01:46 EDT, Olayinka writes: << This lack of independent thought >> Is this anything so unusual? It really would be dog bites man if we observed something very different than the predictable. Sokal himself is rather predictable, showing little interest in getting at the deeper roots of the left intellectual crisis -- a tradition which as a matter of consistency must extend its rejection of reason and science in the social sphere to the sphere of nature and natural science. See on this Ludwig Mises _Human Action_, New Haven: Yale U. Press, 1949, or Friedrich Hayek, _The Fatal Conceit_, Chicago: U. of Chicago Press, 1989. Greg Ransom Dept. of Philosophy UC-Riverside gbransom@aol.com http://members.aol.com/gregransom/ransom.htm http://members.aol.com/gregransom/hayekpage.htm ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 28 Sep 1997 17:09:32 EDT Reply-To: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: "JESPERSEN, NEIL D" Subject: Re: Sokal affair fizzles In-Reply-To: In reply to your message of Sat, 27 Sep 1997 23:50:21 EDT Olayinka Fadahunsi's first sentence says it all. I'd guess that 99% of working scientists do not know that this group exists. The silence you hear is from the people who have better things to do. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 30 Sep 1997 19:54:42 -0400 Reply-To: phoebe@cs.cmu.edu Sender: Sci-Cult Science-as-Culture From: Phoebe Sengers Subject: Sokal affair fizzles > Where are > the scientists who can see the kernel of truth in some of the science studies > criticisms? Here are some of the better-known ones in my field (Artificial Intelligence): Rod Brooks Joseph Bates Inman Harvey Phil Agre Lucy Suchman Terry Winograd Kerstin Dautenhahn The last four have actually done substantive work in AI based on humanist / science-studies-style views. I'd also nominate some of the folks doing interdisciplinary work in science and science studies: Martha Crouch (Biology) Simon Penny (Robotics) A huge chunk of the Computer-Human Interaction subfield of Computer Science (e.g. Brenda Laurel) > This lack of independent thought seems to have > eroded any signs of interest from the general media. I think cause and effect may be backwards here. Having people rip each other to shreds is of interest to the media. Middle-of-the-roaders who think each side has something interesting to say are (1) not as motivated to jump into the fray (2) not as flashy to report on (3) potentially distorted when they ARE reported on. An additional problem is the enormity of the cross-disciplinary field. It's not just science studies and science; it's science studies and biology, and physics, and chemisty, and... Most people in a specific discipline are not able to follow the entire science studies debate, but may be interested when something is in their area of expertise. This is one of the values of more specific work. And many people in all fields are more interested in protecting the boundaries from intrusion than in having substantive communication... - Phoebe Sengers Department of Computer Science and Program in Literary and Cultural Theory Carnegie Mellon University http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~phoebe/work/ phoebe@cs.cmu.edu