That's true Molly. I'm only Oliver asking for more. On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 8:45:34 PM UTC, Molly wrote: > > 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.
