http://youtu.be/sZrgxHvNNUc
On Saturday, February 14, 2015 at 6:20:05 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > 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.
