Research Institutions: Post Grad
Science progresses by the need to question authority and doctrine, search for alternatives, use imagination
, act freely, cooperative work with others...
New Technology: changes are significant but others were more communication, - c.f. random?
Technology is neutral - like a hammer
If you have a framework --conception of what matters (Needs to be adapted changed)
- a clear framework directing research what put aside what used what challenged -
internet can be a useful tool
well directed conceptual apparatus required (that is criticized revised regularly) (i.e. iterative)
Knew what to look for what is significant but also question if framework is right (KeyWords)
- random searches without a framework can lead to cults..?* due to cherry picking knowledge and connections
Measure by economic growth - ? free creative independent individuals = people who increase GDP?
Bertrand Russel John Dewey> better human beings
Public Sector
Lively educational/cultural system geared towards creative exploration
Independence of thought, crossing segments/boundaries , challenge beliefs > new technologies...
Exams can be useful for individual and instructors as a learning tool,
Test results not that important... can if contributes to purpose of education
System is geared to pass hurdles - like horse race...
Searching Enquiring - exploring pursue topics that engage excite us...
Doesn't matter what we cover it matters what you discover,inspiring stundents to discover on their own, challenge if don't agree, look for alternatives if they think better, work through great achievement of past
get to point where learn on own
http://blip.tv/learning-without-frontiers/noam-chomsky-the-purpose-of-education-5925460
*Contrasts with postmodern view of tech as biased to instrumentality and imposing specific 'gaze' (Foucault) / (--re hegemony ?) Whereby 'science' is considered just another cult with no more validity in terms of "truth"... (and possibly equally as 'dangerous' due to fixing subject positions and dualism/ exclusion ignoring Hume etc...)
Do I agree... currently I see the collective value of science to move towards a consensus on method...Process (i.e. peace ?and understanding?)
Re fixed truth - not sure - science must try to be clear about its limitations (Popper) and hidden assumptions re induction/gaze/instrumentality... and its contribution to alienation and danger of conflict
Is the drive to disprove always the best, (Popper(Falsification)) not always as some experiences may depend on belief and leaving them open may be better and safer than closing them to a collective materialist/insrtumentalist driven model ...
Whence Inclusive Listening* /Awareness (c.f.."Randomness"/"Noise")?
The domain seems to me both difficult and of great promise, fertile yet open to misunderstanding and prejudice, in terms of Habermas: communicative competence/discourse in this area, clear research and social discussion is very important
aside:
Language issues have not been resolved... (Typing, although Deleuze, Guatarri and Massumi get close to addressing this() the social sciences are always open to theoretical sabotage by the right...
It is harder to hide/distort valuable theory in the management theory realm as many corporations must be socially effective within its boundaries to achieve its optimum in the long term... the corporations may well use those same effective theories or adapt them to collectively act against social progress at other levels
The appropriation of GST and Hyeck etc and consequence move against GST in the social sciences could be an example...
Popper (1959) "The logic of Scientific Discovery"
Science progresses by the need to question authority and doctrine, search for alternatives, use imagination
, act freely, cooperative work with others...
New Technology: changes are significant but others were more communication, - c.f. random?
Technology is neutral - like a hammer
If you have a framework --conception of what matters (Needs to be adapted changed)
- a clear framework directing research what put aside what used what challenged -
internet can be a useful tool
well directed conceptual apparatus required (that is criticized revised regularly) (i.e. iterative)
Knew what to look for what is significant but also question if framework is right (KeyWords)
- random searches without a framework can lead to cults..?* due to cherry picking knowledge and connections
Measure by economic growth - ? free creative independent individuals = people who increase GDP?
Bertrand Russel John Dewey> better human beings
Public Sector
Lively educational/cultural system geared towards creative exploration
Independence of thought, crossing segments/boundaries , challenge beliefs > new technologies...
Exams can be useful for individual and instructors as a learning tool,
Test results not that important... can if contributes to purpose of education
System is geared to pass hurdles - like horse race...
Searching Enquiring - exploring pursue topics that engage excite us...
Doesn't matter what we cover it matters what you discover,inspiring stundents to discover on their own, challenge if don't agree, look for alternatives if they think better, work through great achievement of past
get to point where learn on own
http://blip.tv/learning-without-frontiers/noam-chomsky-the-purpose-of-education-5925460
*Contrasts with postmodern view of tech as biased to instrumentality and imposing specific 'gaze' (Foucault) / (--re hegemony ?) Whereby 'science' is considered just another cult with no more validity in terms of "truth"... (and possibly equally as 'dangerous' due to fixing subject positions and dualism/ exclusion ignoring Hume etc...)
Do I agree... currently I see the collective value of science to move towards a consensus on method...Process (i.e. peace ?and understanding?)
Re fixed truth - not sure - science must try to be clear about its limitations (Popper) and hidden assumptions re induction/gaze/instrumentality... and its contribution to alienation and danger of conflict
Is the drive to disprove always the best, (Popper(Falsification)) not always as some experiences may depend on belief and leaving them open may be better and safer than closing them to a collective materialist/insrtumentalist driven model ...
Whence Inclusive Listening* /Awareness (c.f.."Randomness"/"Noise")?
The domain seems to me both difficult and of great promise, fertile yet open to misunderstanding and prejudice, in terms of Habermas: communicative competence/discourse in this area, clear research and social discussion is very important
aside:
Language issues have not been resolved... (Typing, although Deleuze, Guatarri and Massumi get close to addressing this() the social sciences are always open to theoretical sabotage by the right...
It is harder to hide/distort valuable theory in the management theory realm as many corporations must be socially effective within its boundaries to achieve its optimum in the long term... the corporations may well use those same effective theories or adapt them to collectively act against social progress at other levels
The appropriation of GST and Hyeck etc and consequence move against GST in the social sciences could be an example...
Popper (1959) "The logic of Scientific Discovery"
No comments:
Post a Comment