No doubt the current event stuff is conCOCKted and restricted. Net neutrality in the US is presented as not allowing broadband vendors doing what the government already does. Though all that crap, we can still manage to extend our reach and ourselves in ways that raise consciousness (McLuhan)
On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 12:13:03 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > Foucault (1979) put forward some ideas on what would happen as information > technology took hold (The Postmodern Condition: a report on knowledge). > Essentially, the professor would be less a repository of facts as we got > free access to these. Much of this literature would glow bright from > Gabby's red pen. Quite a few have taken Fuller's view on how to get more > material into public scrutiny. These should include the distribution and > circulation of knowledge claims. The task of social epistemology of > science, according to Fuller, should be regulation of the production of > knowledge by regulating the rhetorical, technological, and administrative > means of its communication. While there has not been much uptake of > Fuller's proposals as articulated, Lee's work begins to make detailed > recommendations that take into account the current structures of funding > and communication. Fuller encounter between individual-based social > epistemology with its focus on testimony and disagreement as transactions > among individuals and the more fully social epistemologies that take social > relations or interaction as partially constitutive of empirical knowledge, > is the goal. > > Whatever this mouthful says, much is not on the internet because existing > power interests have prevented it. A new business model with > countervailing structures is not really emerging. The lack of progress is > not surprising, but I suspect most of us don't know how much has been > blocked. > > > Fuller, Steve, 1988. Social Epistemology, Bloomington, IN: Indiana > University Press. > Lee, Carole J., 2012. “A Kuhnian Critique of Psychometric Research on Peer > Review,” Philosophy of Science, 79(5): 859–870. > –––, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Guo Zhang, and Blaise Cronin, 2013, “Bias in > Peer Review,” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and > Technology, 64(1): 2–17. > > On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 3:14:39 PM UTC, archytas wrote: >> >> Welcome Twirly - you sound remarkably like someone else. We'll be >> playing our cards right soon. I'm glad you bought a pair of Facil's boots. >> Allan seems to have been filling his. The question probably concerns what >> expert knowledge is. There is now a long history of what it wasn't. Think >> clerks trying to smash Babbage's counting machine or Luddites on machinery >> generally. The shipyards I worked in were full of expert skills not >> actually needed in building ships. We have embedded a lot of work skill in >> technology. The resistance of the allocation class has been aggressive. >> >> Do??? - there must be some German distinction between knowing that and >> knowing how - wohl wissend, dass and zu wissen, wie? Finding the root >> metaphors is quite difficult. People are reluctant to show you what they >> actually do; perhaps beyond your category error and being left trying to >> model a non-slip process with grease. We have plenty of examples of TPM >> (total production maintenance) as you say. Teachers, lawyers, accountants, >> managers and politicians all claim expert knowledge. The expertise may be >> keeping up the delusion of expertise, rather than rule following and >> ability to break the rules of actual practice, a bit like a secretive form >> of a soccer player allowed to carry a machine gun - think big company >> tax-dodging and stuff like high frequency trading, front-running and other >> investment tricks since telescopes were used to spot ships on the horizon >> by commodities traders. >> >> Big issues, of course, concerning who controls the technology. >> Currently, ownership is very restricted, to niche markets like Molly's and >> those behind the smiling pussy internet and government and commercial >> spying. Many still have no access. And we have no challenge to really big >> news-entertainment corporations - other than Democracy No, Real News and >> illegal streams of the same old content. >> >> On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 1:46:35 PM UTC, Gabby wrote: >>> >>> Okay. Next round. Twirly-girly at your service or at your command, >>> whatever you prefer. >>> >>> In a different context I pulled my red pen on the sentence before the >>> one that Facil marked. (Excellent video translation btw, Facil!) >>> >>> My main point was that you cannot do(???) expert knowledge on a root >>> metaphor with a categorical break at the wrong place - if not to say on the >>> wrong metaphor, because the same car driving training one was used. >>> >>> Meaning in speed and business terms, the earlier in the process you >>> identify the error, the cheaper the error eradication process. >>> >>> I took down a different different keyword from my eternal savior's >>> doings in the delusion thread, but I will take better care this time as to >>> not have it overwritten again this time. It will be one brick of a solid >>> square. >>> >>> Am Freitag, 13. Februar 2015 15:41:22 UTC+1 schrieb archytas: >>>> >>>> Most of my use of the internet concerns researching pretty dire >>>> academic papers and books through still largely restricted access. It's >>>> much cheaper than buying the stuff directly, particularly as 99% of what >>>> shows up is dross. I've played with the rest to find out what is there. >>>> Search is a big plus compared with rooting through stuff in a university >>>> library. Now, much google search just turns up dross I don't want. >>>> >>>> In an academic project we are interested in what is on the net >>>> generally - in terms of how much of general consciousness this represents. >>>> Rational discussion is a tiny part of what is on the net. Techies spend >>>> a >>>> lot of time looking for cut and paste code and ways we might automate this >>>> sweep. There is a background idea that we are looking for new ways to do >>>> 'expert knowledge' on the metaphor of people not being able to build cars >>>> but able to drive them with a bit of training. My own bad is 'big data' >>>> as >>>> a new language that would bring a different speed to human discourse and >>>> potentially control of the means of production. >>>> >>>> Lately, I'm interested in the lack of a business model for anything >>>> except trash. I can join a site where a couple of young women will send >>>> me >>>> off-the-peg clothes on approval to ensure my sartorial elegance, though >>>> don't. There are plenty of interesting Moochs, but I don't have time. I >>>> bank n line and have the joy of never seeing a bank clerk. Shopping can be >>>> done in the same manner as shops don't interest me at all. My insurance >>>> renewals are always 30% higher than I can get the same cover for via one >>>> of >>>> the broker sites on the day. >>>> >>>> I do electronic teaching. So I'm no longer racked by whatever diseases >>>> undergraduate classes try to kill me with. And I never see a boss or have >>>> to attend a useless staff meeting, or have my classes flooded as the >>>> students discover I'm an easier touch and tell jokes. The work is more or >>>> less pre-prepared and my timetable is not changed at ridiculous short >>>> notice and I don't have to take time to teach kids from other classes, at >>>> my door because they can't get anywhere with the guy supposed to help. >>>> >>>> I can watch television and films through illegal sites, but would >>>> really prefer to pay for channels where I could select from much wider >>>> material without packaging. The current business model encourages loads >>>> of >>>> channels with the same (usually old) dross, or stuff like Netflix with >>>> only >>>> 1% I'd want to see and don't want to pay to support. Sports channels >>>> require me to pay for soccer I don't want. Tony has done more for me in a >>>> few minutes (neglecting his production time) than Sky Arts bores ever >>>> could. We lack a business model of actual choice. With one, insanestream >>>> news and other entertainment, the crap science pornography of the BBC, >>>> Discovery and so on, would be things of my past. In chronic business >>>> terms, I wonder how they do market segmentation at all. I am sick of Blue >>>> Peter (kids programme here) presentation. >>>> >>>> One can imagine plenty of people like the best through this group >>>> wanting something very different and something large enough not to be a >>>> part of when time presses and so on. Uber, properly supervised against >>>> racist drivers, could bring very radical change - I meet few who can >>>> explain why - though we have not yet worked out that technology could >>>> massively reduce what we currently call work and planet burning. In the >>>> meantime we can't even set up a discussion group without Gabby (and >>>> everyone really) worrying on the curtain shades. Give us a twirl then >>>> girl, like one of those doxies Bruce Forsythe used to encourage. I can >>>> see >>>> something of a business model, starting with Chris' 'attractors'. The >>>> eventual key is content for a sophisticated audience - remembering very >>>> few >>>> people do education without any kind of accreditation pay-off and the >>>> means >>>> to pay for organisation does not move easily from free. Current >>>> strategies >>>> are advertising and the begging bowl. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
