Re: [Fis] Scientific communication

[Mark Johnson]

Dear Michel,

I'm mindful that we're breaking the rules of the forum so I will
follow this up off-list, but I think this is worth mentioning to the
group.

The starting point is a diagram, or a sequence of diagrams - certainly
that's most appropriate for a systems theoretical approach like
Keen's. Can you draw some pictures to explain your understanding? With
a series of diagrams, a voice-over is easy to add. (Occasionally I
start with the voice, and add the pictures)

I also want to say that sometimes this process is a sticking point for
people, because the precision of diagrams is much more demanding than
the looseness of words: often when we start to draw something, we can
see weaknesses in our position. Then it can become a matter of 'fight
or flight': does one resist exposing potential weaknesses in one's
position, and retreat back into the world of the academic paper and
words, or does one draw the diagram anyway and acknowledge its
limitations and assumptions? I am clearly encouraging people to do the
latter, not least because I think exposing the limitations of a
position is the most important thing to communicate in an uncertain
world!

Best wishes,

Mark




On 29 October 2016 at 17:31, Michel Godron <migod...@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> Dear Mark,
>
> It would certainly be interesting to prepare a video. But how to make it ?
>
> My contribution would be marginal : I can only explain (in french and you
> would translate, as Richard Forman did for Landscape Ecology) why the ideas
> of Keen are parallel with the main ecological models on the role of
> informatioo in biology (La vie est une transmission et une gestion de
> l'information qui permet à chaque être vivant et à chaque communaué d'êtres
> vivants - y compris l'humanité -  de survivre).
>
> Cordialement.
> M. Godron
> Le 29/10/2016 à 15:25, Mark Johnson a écrit :
>
> Dear Michel,
>
> Ok. Steve Keen has been close to Tony Lawson's work (he presented Minsky at
> Lawson's conference last year) - he's a supporter of his broad thesis,
> although obviously he's done more mathematical modelling which Lawson has
> some possibly valid objections to.  They've had some fascinating critical
> exchanges.
>
> This blog by Steve is interesting -
> http://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/13775327-the-need-for-pluralism-in-economics
>
> Hayek is in the mix, as is perhaps a shared disdain for Stiglitz and co.
>
> I like Steve's work, and his prediction of the crisis is good, and (relevant
> to this discussion) I like the fact that his simulation tool Minsky is
> freely available for download here: https://sourceforge.net/projects/minsky/
>
> So, to come back to my original comment... It's possible to explain this
> stuff  with video, isn't it?...
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Mark
> ____
> From: Michel Godron
> Sent: ‎29/‎10/‎2016 14:06
> To: Mark Johnson
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Scientific communication
>
> Dear Mark,
>
> You write : "I'm guessing you are thinking of the line of thought from
> Hayek to Stiglitz?" It is not at all my way. Among the economists I
> shoud be rather in agreement with Keen and Minsky (I could send some
> pages explaining (in french) why.
>
>   Cordialement. M. Godron
> Le 29/10/2016 à 14:22, Mark Johnson a écrit :
>> I'm guessing you are thinking of the line of thought from Hayek to
>> Stiglitz?
>
>
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>



-- 
Dr. Mark William Johnson
Institute of Learning and Teaching
Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
University of Liverpool

Phone: 07786 064505
Email: johnsonm...@gmail.com
Blog: http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Scientific communication

[Dai Griffiths]

The dominance of English in the scientific publishing is something that 
we have not mentioned in the discussion so far, and it is a very 
substantial fact about scientific communication. I take the use of other 
languages on this list as a comment on that fact.


Linguistic diversity is a great enricher of human experience, and I can 
easily see why one might feel it to be 'malheureuse' that we can't read 
scientific literature in our own languages, nor to participate in this 
kind of forum. But I myself feel ambivalent about this.


I would argue that the scientific discourse per se is inaccessible to 
many people, whatever language it is couched in. So it is not clear to 
what extent greater linguistic diversity in scientific publishing would 
in fact enhance the sharing of knowledge, even if we went down the route 
of linguistic fragmentation.


I'd also point out that English, French, Spanish, Italian etc. have all 
busily spent the last couple of hundred years imposing nationalist 
programmes to destroy the linguistic diversity within their own borders. 
From this perspective an effort to publish papers in Spanish rather than 
English, for example, often looks (to me) like a manifestation of two 
imperial cultures struggling for dominance, having already carried out a 
scorched earth policy in their own territories.


There are social costs associated with the dominance of English, but 
also reasons to celebrate its use as a global language of scientific 
communication, and a great enabler of the distribution of scientific 
information. But to make sense of the trade-off we must be able to 
critique the way that nationalism influences our view of language and 
culture. That is a job for:


- English speakers (to rigorously avoid ascribing the dominance of 
English to any merit of the language itself, and to learn other 
languages in order to inform their communication with an international 
audience)


- speakers of other languages with state support (to disentangle 
nationalist agendas from a desire for more effective communication)


- speakers of languages that are currently being pushed into irrelevance 
or oblivion (to overcome their emotional pain in order to achieve more 
effective communication).


If we do not conduct these critiques, we will be unable to make sense of 
the relationship between the hegemony of English and the dynamic of 
scientific publication. In my view that is an important topic, and 
relevant to our understanding of scientific information.


Now you can test the limits of Google Translate if you want (I've tried 
to help it!)


Cymraeg nawr:

Yn bersonol liciwn i ymdrin â pynciau fel hyn yn y Gymraeg, ond dwi ddim 
yn disgwyl ei wneud, hyd yn oed ym Mhrifysgol Cymru. Hefyd, basa i'n 
falch yr ymddwyn y sgwrs yn y Gatalaneg. Sut ydyn ni'n gallu penderfynu 
pa ieithoedd sy'n cael mynediad i'r clwb breintiedig sy'n cael eu 
defnyddio yng nghylchgronau gwyddonol? Beth bynnag, fel mae'n digwydd 
dwi'n gallu deall Ffrangeg ag Eidaleg, a dwi'n hapus braf i ddarllen nhw 
ar y rhestr yma. Felly dwi ddim yn wneud sylwadau personol ar neb ar y 
rhestr.


Efallai dych chi'm meddwl mod i'n dadlau hwn fel jôc, felly mae'n werth 
dweud mod i wedi astudio modiwl ar seicoleg yn y Gymraeg yn y prifysgol, 
a chyrsiau PhD yn y Gatalaneg. Does 'na dim problem gyda'r ieithoedd ei 
hunain.


Dai


On 28/10/16 23:25, Michel Godron wrote:


Merci pour cette vision très large de ce qu'est l'économie.

Au delà de la musique suggérée par Ilya Prigogine, il a maintenat été 
montré que l'économie, comme l'écologie, est un système de gestion de 
l'information qui donne des réactions pour maintenir le sytème en 
équilibre. Malheureusement, cette démonstration est esquissée en 
anglais seulement dans /Landscape Ecology/.


Cordialement.
M. Godron


Le 26/10/2016 à 16:07, Francesco Rizzo a écrit :

Caro Mark,
non conosco il pensiero dell'economista che Tu mi indichi. cercherò 
di superare questa lacuna. Tuttavia, tra l'economia e la storia vi è 
una differenza di fondo: l'economia è una scienza mediatrice, la 
storia è una scienza federatrice. Alla domanda "Che cos'è 
l'economia?" si può rispondere in tanti modi. Per me l'economia è un 
pensiero che tende a realizzare il massimo risultano col minimo 
costo. Anch'io adotto la teoria della probabilità soggettiva di J. M. 
Keynes e ritengo che i sistemi economici siano fondati sui valori 
normali dal punto di vista soggettivo. Suggerisco inoltre, come ha 
fatto Ilya Prigogine, di assumere il paradigma della musica come base 
dell'intera scienza. Compresa quella economica. Tutta la mia vita è 
stata dedicata alla ricerca della "Nuova economia". Quindi è giusto 
comunicarlo, senza alcuna presunzione o superbia. Ho inventato 
davvero una una nuova concezione economica. Complimenti per la tua 
capacità comunicativa e auguri.

Un abbraccio.
Francesco

2016-10-26 13:21 GMT+02:00 Mark Johnson >:


Dear 

Re: [Fis] Scientific communication

[Mark Johnson]

Dear Michel,

Ok. Steve Keen has been close to Tony Lawson's work (he presented Minsky at 
Lawson's conference last year) - he's a supporter of his broad thesis, although 
obviously he's done more mathematical modelling which Lawson has some possibly 
valid objections to.  They've had some fascinating critical exchanges.

This blog by Steve is interesting - 
http://www.goodreads.com/author_blog_posts/13775327-the-need-for-pluralism-in-economics

Hayek is in the mix, as is perhaps a shared disdain for Stiglitz and co. 

I like Steve's work, and his prediction of the crisis is good, and (relevant to 
this discussion) I like the fact that his simulation tool Minsky is freely 
available for download here: https://sourceforge.net/projects/minsky/

So, to come back to my original comment... It's possible to explain this stuff  
with video, isn't it?...

Best wishes,

Mark

-Original Message-
From: "Michel Godron" <migod...@wanadoo.fr>
Sent: ‎29/‎10/‎2016 14:06
To: "Mark Johnson" <johnsonm...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Scientific communication

Dear Mark,

You write : "I'm guessing you are thinking of the line of thought from 
Hayek to Stiglitz?" It is not at all my way. Among the economists I 
shoud be rather in agreement with Keen and Minsky (I could send some 
pages explaining (in french) why.

  Cordialement. M. Godron
Le 29/10/2016 à 14:22, Mark Johnson a écrit :
> I'm guessing you are thinking of the line of thought from Hayek to 
> Stiglitz?

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Scientific communication

[Mark Johnson]

Dear Francesco and Michel,

I wonder if it would be possible to make a video explaining these different 
ideas?

I'm intrigued by Francesco's economics (particularly the Keynesian 
probability), and while I remain less confident than Michel that it has been 
"shown" that economics is about information (I'm guessing you are thinking of 
the line of thought from Hayek to Stiglitz?) it would be more compelling to see 
these ideas expressed in richer ways that dry academic papers. Maybe there's an 
important project here?

Best wishes,

Mark

-Original Message-
From: "Michel Godron" <migod...@wanadoo.fr>
Sent: ‎28/‎10/‎2016 23:27
To: "fis@listas.unizar.es" <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Subject: Re: [Fis] Scientific communication

Merci pour cette vision très large de ce qu'est l'économie. 

Au delà de la musique suggérée par Ilya Prigogine, il a maintenat été montré 
que l'économie, comme l'écologie, est un système de gestion de l'information 
qui donne des réactions pour maintenir le sytème en équilibre. Malheureusement, 
cette démonstration est esquissée en anglais seulement dans Landscape Ecology.  
 

Cordialement. 
M. Godron



Le 26/10/2016 à 16:07, Francesco Rizzo a écrit :

Caro Mark, 
non conosco il pensiero dell'economista che Tu mi indichi. cercherò di superare 
questa lacuna. Tuttavia, tra l'economia e la storia vi è una differenza di 
fondo: l'economia è una scienza mediatrice, la storia è una scienza 
federatrice. Alla domanda "Che cos'è l'economia?" si può rispondere in tanti 
modi. Per me l'economia è un pensiero che tende a realizzare il massimo 
risultano col minimo costo. Anch'io adotto la teoria della probabilità 
soggettiva di J. M. Keynes e ritengo che i sistemi economici siano fondati sui 
valori normali dal punto di vista soggettivo. Suggerisco inoltre, come ha fatto 
Ilya Prigogine, di assumere il paradigma della musica come base dell'intera 
scienza. Compresa quella economica. Tutta la mia vita è stata dedicata alla 
ricerca della "Nuova economia". Quindi è giusto comunicarlo, senza alcuna 
presunzione o superbia. Ho inventato davvero una una nuova concezione 
economica. Complimenti per la tua capacità comunicativa e auguri.
Un abbraccio.
Francesco


2016-10-26 13:21 GMT+02:00 Mark Johnson <johnsonm...@gmail.com>:

Dear Jose, Francisco and Pedro, (Pedro - please could you forward if
the server won't do it?)

First of all, thank you Jose for pointing out this news story. It's
interesting to reflect that Alan Sokal's hoax of 1996 (which is
similar) was specifically directed at a discourse which he deemed to
be unscientific (postmodernism). This one is a nuclear physics
conference and clearly, nobody cares about the science - this is
about money, status and ego: I'm not sure Sokal could see the full
extent of this in the 1990s.

Francisco, I agree with you about not tarring everything with the same
brush. On the other hand, I think it is important not to stop asking
fundamental questions, not least "What is economics?". Even great
economists like Hayek and Von Mises were not convinced about its
subject matter (they thought it should be "Catallactics" - the science
of exchange) - and they were even less convinced by the maths! I do
recommend Tony Lawson's work for a broader perspective on economic
history.

Pedro, thank you for a very elegant summary of the complexities of the
"science system". I like the study of the nature of information
because, rather like cybernetics, it digs away at the foundations of
things. There is of course a practical level where we publish papers
(which few read) and fall asleep (or get drunk) at conferences (!).
But I am arguing that what we think happens in the "brownian motion
chamber" of face-to-face communication isn't as impenetrable as we
might have thought (Bateson got this) , and that it is profoundly
connected not only to what we do with technology, but to the
pathologies of communication, marketisation and inauthenticity that
Sokal and others point to. This partly falls into the domain of the
phenomenologists (Alfred Schutz is important in covering this
territory), but also into the domain of artists who communicate in
powerfully in different kinds of ways. There's more work to do here.

As a very speculative contribution to this, I've done one more video
which is an attempt to summarise my argument and tie it to an example
of musical communication (a Bach fugue). Alfred Schutz wrote a
wonderful paper on music called "Making Music Together"
(https://www.jstor.org/stable/40969255 - Loet told me about this years
ago, and it's one of the few really great academic papers I know). I
don't mention Schutz in the video, but I do use John Maynard Keynes's
remarkable treatise on probability from 1921.

I argue that at the root of our communication practices lie
assumptions about 'counting' and 'similarity': we make assumptions
about t

Re: [Fis] Scientific communication

[Michel Godron]

Merci pour cette vision très large de ce qu'est l'économie.

Au delà de la musique suggérée par Ilya Prigogine, il a maintenat été 
montré que l'économie, comme l'écologie, est un système de gestion de 
l'information qui donne des réactions pour maintenir le sytème en 
équilibre. Malheureusement, cette démonstration est esquissée en anglais 
seulement dans /Landscape Ecology/.


Cordialement.
M. Godron


Le 26/10/2016 à 16:07, Francesco Rizzo a écrit :

Caro Mark,
non conosco il pensiero dell'economista che Tu mi indichi. cercherò di 
superare questa lacuna. Tuttavia, tra l'economia e la storia vi è una 
differenza di fondo: l'economia è una scienza mediatrice, la storia è 
una scienza federatrice. Alla domanda "Che cos'è l'economia?" si può 
rispondere in tanti modi. Per me l'economia è un pensiero che tende a 
realizzare il massimo risultano col minimo costo. Anch'io adotto la 
teoria della probabilità soggettiva di J. M. Keynes e ritengo che i 
sistemi economici siano fondati sui valori normali dal punto di vista 
soggettivo. Suggerisco inoltre, come ha fatto Ilya Prigogine, di 
assumere il paradigma della musica come base dell'intera scienza. 
Compresa quella economica. Tutta la mia vita è stata dedicata alla 
ricerca della "Nuova economia". Quindi è giusto comunicarlo, senza 
alcuna presunzione o superbia. Ho inventato davvero una una nuova 
concezione economica. Complimenti per la tua capacità comunicativa e 
auguri.

Un abbraccio.
Francesco

2016-10-26 13:21 GMT+02:00 Mark Johnson >:


Dear Jose, Francisco and Pedro, (Pedro - please could you forward if
the server won't do it?)

First of all, thank you Jose for pointing out this news story. It's
interesting to reflect that Alan Sokal's hoax of 1996 (which is
similar) was specifically directed at a discourse which he deemed to
be unscientific (postmodernism). This one is a nuclear physics
conference and clearly, nobody cares about the science - this is
about money, status and ego: I'm not sure Sokal could see the full
extent of this in the 1990s.

Francisco, I agree with you about not tarring everything with the same
brush. On the other hand, I think it is important not to stop asking
fundamental questions, not least "What is economics?". Even great
economists like Hayek and Von Mises were not convinced about its
subject matter (they thought it should be "Catallactics" - the science
of exchange) - and they were even less convinced by the maths! I do
recommend Tony Lawson's work for a broader perspective on economic
history.

Pedro, thank you for a very elegant summary of the complexities of the
"science system". I like the study of the nature of information
because, rather like cybernetics, it digs away at the foundations of
things. There is of course a practical level where we publish papers
(which few read) and fall asleep (or get drunk) at conferences (!).
But I am arguing that what we think happens in the "brownian motion
chamber" of face-to-face communication isn't as impenetrable as we
might have thought (Bateson got this) , and that it is profoundly
connected not only to what we do with technology, but to the
pathologies of communication, marketisation and inauthenticity that
Sokal and others point to. This partly falls into the domain of the
phenomenologists (Alfred Schutz is important in covering this
territory), but also into the domain of artists who communicate in
powerfully in different kinds of ways. There's more work to do here.

As a very speculative contribution to this, I've done one more video
which is an attempt to summarise my argument and tie it to an example
of musical communication (a Bach fugue). Alfred Schutz wrote a
wonderful paper on music called "Making Music Together"
(https://www.jstor.org/stable/40969255
 - Loet told me about this
years
ago, and it's one of the few really great academic papers I know). I
don't mention Schutz in the video, but I do use John Maynard Keynes's
remarkable treatise on probability from 1921.

I argue that at the root of our communication practices lie
assumptions about 'counting' and 'similarity': we make assumptions
about things being the same, we count references (but one reference is
not the same as another!), etc; in scientific practice, we make
connections between like-observations and causal explanations - all
the while losing sight of the possibility that it is us who impose the
order of similarity on things. I've found Keynes's idea of 'negative
analogy' (see video) useful for looking at this differently, and to
explain the patterns perceived in music. I've found understanding this
helpful to understand that the "Brownian motion" may also be like
this. The process depends on multiple 

Re: [Fis] Scientific communication

[Michel Godron]

Dear friends,

Could you precise the  "deep questions about Shannon and probability" 
which remain ?
Are they so deep with Brillouin's information which is very useful for 
my ecology problems ?


M. Godron
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Scientific communication

[Francesco Rizzo]

Caro Mark,
non conosco il pensiero dell'economista che Tu mi indichi. cercherò di
superare questa lacuna. Tuttavia, tra l'economia e la storia vi è una
differenza di fondo: l'economia è una scienza mediatrice, la storia è una
scienza federatrice. Alla domanda "Che cos'è l'economia?" si può rispondere
in tanti modi. Per me l'economia è un pensiero che tende a realizzare il
massimo risultano col minimo costo. Anch'io adotto la teoria della
probabilità soggettiva di J. M. Keynes e ritengo che i sistemi economici
siano fondati sui valori normali dal punto di vista soggettivo. Suggerisco
inoltre, come ha fatto Ilya Prigogine, di assumere il paradigma della
musica come base dell'intera scienza. Compresa quella economica. Tutta la
mia vita è stata dedicata alla ricerca della "Nuova economia". Quindi è
giusto comunicarlo, senza alcuna presunzione o superbia. Ho inventato
davvero una una nuova concezione economica. Complimenti per la tua capacità
comunicativa e auguri.
Un abbraccio.
Francesco

2016-10-26 13:21 GMT+02:00 Mark Johnson :

> Dear Jose, Francisco and Pedro, (Pedro - please could you forward if
> the server won't do it?)
>
> First of all, thank you Jose for pointing out this news story. It's
> interesting to reflect that Alan Sokal's hoax of 1996 (which is
> similar) was specifically directed at a discourse which he deemed to
> be unscientific (postmodernism). This one is a nuclear physics
> conference and clearly, nobody cares about the science - this is
> about money, status and ego: I'm not sure Sokal could see the full
> extent of this in the 1990s.
>
> Francisco, I agree with you about not tarring everything with the same
> brush. On the other hand, I think it is important not to stop asking
> fundamental questions, not least "What is economics?". Even great
> economists like Hayek and Von Mises were not convinced about its
> subject matter (they thought it should be "Catallactics" - the science
> of exchange) - and they were even less convinced by the maths! I do
> recommend Tony Lawson's work for a broader perspective on economic
> history.
>
> Pedro, thank you for a very elegant summary of the complexities of the
> "science system". I like the study of the nature of information
> because, rather like cybernetics, it digs away at the foundations of
> things. There is of course a practical level where we publish papers
> (which few read) and fall asleep (or get drunk) at conferences (!).
> But I am arguing that what we think happens in the "brownian motion
> chamber" of face-to-face communication isn't as impenetrable as we
> might have thought (Bateson got this) , and that it is profoundly
> connected not only to what we do with technology, but to the
> pathologies of communication, marketisation and inauthenticity that
> Sokal and others point to. This partly falls into the domain of the
> phenomenologists (Alfred Schutz is important in covering this
> territory), but also into the domain of artists who communicate in
> powerfully in different kinds of ways. There's more work to do here.
>
> As a very speculative contribution to this, I've done one more video
> which is an attempt to summarise my argument and tie it to an example
> of musical communication (a Bach fugue). Alfred Schutz wrote a
> wonderful paper on music called "Making Music Together"
> (https://www.jstor.org/stable/40969255 - Loet told me about this years
> ago, and it's one of the few really great academic papers I know). I
> don't mention Schutz in the video, but I do use John Maynard Keynes's
> remarkable treatise on probability from 1921.
>
> I argue that at the root of our communication practices lie
> assumptions about 'counting' and 'similarity': we make assumptions
> about things being the same, we count references (but one reference is
> not the same as another!), etc; in scientific practice, we make
> connections between like-observations and causal explanations - all
> the while losing sight of the possibility that it is us who impose the
> order of similarity on things. I've found Keynes's idea of 'negative
> analogy' (see video) useful for looking at this differently, and to
> explain the patterns perceived in music. I've found understanding this
> helpful to understand that the "Brownian motion" may also be like
> this. The process depends on multiple descriptions - which brings
> things back to my basic argument for the exploitation of rich
> communications media, etc. I should also say that Loet's ideas on
> mutual redundancy also fit to this perspective, although there remain
> deep questions about Shannon and probability.
>
> Apologies for the rather crackly sound in parts of the video, but I
> hope at least some of it makes sense (and I hope I didn't make too
> many mistakes playing the Bach fugue!)
>
> The video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeuRlVrTUGU -
> "Scientific Communication: From Keynes's Probability theory to a Bach
> Fugue"
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Mark
>
> On 22 

Re: [Fis] Scientific communication

[Mark Johnson]

Dear Jose, Francisco and Pedro, (Pedro - please could you forward if
the server won't do it?)

First of all, thank you Jose for pointing out this news story. It's
interesting to reflect that Alan Sokal's hoax of 1996 (which is
similar) was specifically directed at a discourse which he deemed to
be unscientific (postmodernism). This one is a nuclear physics
conference and clearly, nobody cares about the science - this is
about money, status and ego: I'm not sure Sokal could see the full
extent of this in the 1990s.

Francisco, I agree with you about not tarring everything with the same
brush. On the other hand, I think it is important not to stop asking
fundamental questions, not least "What is economics?". Even great
economists like Hayek and Von Mises were not convinced about its
subject matter (they thought it should be "Catallactics" - the science
of exchange) - and they were even less convinced by the maths! I do
recommend Tony Lawson's work for a broader perspective on economic
history.

Pedro, thank you for a very elegant summary of the complexities of the
"science system". I like the study of the nature of information
because, rather like cybernetics, it digs away at the foundations of
things. There is of course a practical level where we publish papers
(which few read) and fall asleep (or get drunk) at conferences (!).
But I am arguing that what we think happens in the "brownian motion
chamber" of face-to-face communication isn't as impenetrable as we
might have thought (Bateson got this) , and that it is profoundly
connected not only to what we do with technology, but to the
pathologies of communication, marketisation and inauthenticity that
Sokal and others point to. This partly falls into the domain of the
phenomenologists (Alfred Schutz is important in covering this
territory), but also into the domain of artists who communicate in
powerfully in different kinds of ways. There's more work to do here.

As a very speculative contribution to this, I've done one more video
which is an attempt to summarise my argument and tie it to an example
of musical communication (a Bach fugue). Alfred Schutz wrote a
wonderful paper on music called "Making Music Together"
(https://www.jstor.org/stable/40969255 - Loet told me about this years
ago, and it's one of the few really great academic papers I know). I
don't mention Schutz in the video, but I do use John Maynard Keynes's
remarkable treatise on probability from 1921.

I argue that at the root of our communication practices lie
assumptions about 'counting' and 'similarity': we make assumptions
about things being the same, we count references (but one reference is
not the same as another!), etc; in scientific practice, we make
connections between like-observations and causal explanations - all
the while losing sight of the possibility that it is us who impose the
order of similarity on things. I've found Keynes's idea of 'negative
analogy' (see video) useful for looking at this differently, and to
explain the patterns perceived in music. I've found understanding this
helpful to understand that the "Brownian motion" may also be like
this. The process depends on multiple descriptions - which brings
things back to my basic argument for the exploitation of rich
communications media, etc. I should also say that Loet's ideas on
mutual redundancy also fit to this perspective, although there remain
deep questions about Shannon and probability.

Apologies for the rather crackly sound in parts of the video, but I
hope at least some of it makes sense (and I hope I didn't make too
many mistakes playing the Bach fugue!)

The video is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LeuRlVrTUGU -
"Scientific Communication: From Keynes's Probability theory to a Bach
Fugue"

Best wishes,

Mark

On 22 October 2016 at 13:18, Jose Javier Blanco Rivero
 wrote:
> Dear Mark,
>
> I think this might be of interest for the discussion
>
> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/oct/22/nonsense-paper-written-by-ios-autocomplete-accepted-for-conference
>
> It's a extreme case of economic interest debunking scientific communication.
> I think it shows a problem of coding between science and economics. Codes
> disambiguate information processing allowing differentiation. Frauds like
> these fall in between both codes: they are making money out of science
> without making science.
>
> Best,
>
> Javier
>
> El oct 21, 2016 9:06 a.m., "Francesco Rizzo" <13francesco.ri...@gmail.com>
> escribió:
>>
>> Caro Mark e cari tutti,
>> da "Il giudizio di valore" (1972) affermo che la scienza economica
>> "normale" doveva essere buttata alle ortiche o nell'immondezzaio, perchè
>> "La scienza non può non essere  umana, civile, sociale, ECONOMI(C)A,
>> enigmatica, nobile, profetica" (2016). Quindi non mi viene facile leggere
>> taluni rilievi critici che non possono condividere perché non è giusto fare
>> di tutte le erbe un fascio.
>> Ho rispetto del pensiero degli altri, ma ritengo 

Re: [Fis] Scientific communication

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear Mark and FIS colleagues,

It was a pity that our previous replies just crossed in time, otherwise 
I would have continued along your thinking lines. However, your 
alternative focus on who has access to the "Brownian chamber motion" is 
pretty exciting too.


Following our FIS colleague Howard Bloom ("The Global Brain", 2000), 
universities and the like are a social haven for a new type of 
personality that does not match very well within the social order of 
things. It is the "Faustian type" of mental explorers, dreamers, 
creators of thought, etc. Historically they have been extremely 
important but the way they are treated (even in those "havens" 
themselves!), well, usually is rather frustrating except for a few 
fortunate parties. A long list of arch-famous scientific figures ended 
very badly indeed.


So, in this view, people "called to the box" are the Faustians of the 
locality... But of course, other essential factors impinge on the box 
composition and inner directions, often very rudely. SCIENTIA POTESTAS 
EST: it means that as the box's outcomes are so much influential in the 
technology, religion, culture, richness, prosperity, and military power, 
etc., a mixing of socio-political interests will impress a tough 
handling in the external guidance and inner contents of the poor box.


And finally, the education --as you have implied-- that very often is 
deeply imbued with classist structures and class selection. The vitality 
of the Brownian box would most frequently hang from these educational 
structures --purses-- for both financing and arrival of new people. And 
that implies further administrative strings and been involved in 
frequent bureaucratic internecine conflicts. The book of Gregory Clark 
(2014, The Son also Raises) is an excellent reading on class "iron 
statistics" everywhere, particularly in education.


E puor si muove! All those burdens have a balance of positive supporting 
and negative discouraging influences, different in each era. Perhaps far 
better in our times, but who knows... The good thing relating our 
discussion is that, from immemorial times, all those Brownian boxes 
around are wonderfully agitated and refreshed by the external 
communication flows of scientific publications via the multiple channels 
(explosive ones today, almost toxic for the Faustian).


Maintaining a healthy, open-minded scientific system... easy said than done.

Best regards
--Pedro





El 16/10/2016 a las 16:07, Mark Johnson escribió:

Dear Pedro,

Thank you for bringing this back down to earth again. I would like to
challenge something in your first comment - partly because contained
within it are issues which connect the science of information with the
politics of publishing and elite education.

Your 'bet' that "that oral exchange continues to be the central
vehicle. It is the "Brownian Motion" that keeps running and infuses
vitality to the entire edifice of science." is of course right.
However, there is a political/critical issue as to who has ACCESS to
the chamber with the Brownian motion.

It is common for elite private schools in the UK (and I'm sure
elsewhere) to say "exams aren't important to us. What matters are the
things around the edges of formal education... character-building
activities, contact with the elite, etc". What they mean is that they
don't worry about exams because their processes of pre-selection and
'hot-housing' mean that all their students will do well in exams
anyway. But nobody would argue that exams are not important for
personal advancement in today's society, would they?

Similarly, elite universities may say "published papers are not that
important - what happens face-to-face is what matters!". Those
universities do not have to worry so much about publishing in
high-quality journals because (often) the editors of those journals
are employed by those universities. But when, at least in the last 10
years or so, did anybody get an academic job in a university with no
publications?

I draw attention to this not because it seems like a stitch-up
(although it is). It is because it skews what you call the "Brownian
motion". At worst we end up with the kind of prejudice that was
expressed by Professor Tim Hunt last year
(https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/10/nobel-scientist-tim-hunt-female-scientists-cause-trouble-for-men-in-labs).
More fundamentally, the doubts and uncertainties of the many are very
important, and in this system, they are not only not heard, but in the
increasingly rarefied and and specialised exchanges in the "Brownian
motion chamber", as the elite scholars endlessly discuss ontological
arguments for the existence of information (!), everyone else is
effectively locked-out.

The economic crisis and the economists is a good example of this kind
of pathology. It was pretty obvious that the economic system was
heading for trouble quite some time before 2008; it was also obvious
to a few economists on the fringes (who became 

Re: [Fis] Scientific communication (from Mark)

[Bruno Marchal]

On 14 Oct 2016, at 16:16, Dai Griffiths wrote:

To trying to answer this question, I find myself asking "Do patterns  
exist without an observer?".


Would 2+2=4 be true without the big bang occurring?

Of course this depend on the fundamental theory chosen. With a  
physicalist theory, it is arguable that a pattern does not exist  
without an observer, but this raise the question of what is an  
observer. If it is itself a pattern, where does the first observer  
come from, etc.
With Mechanism, which has been shown epistemologically inconsistent  
with physicalism, we can accept that the truth or falsity of  
arithmetical relations is independent of the existence of an observer,  
and then we can easily defined an observer in term of arithmetical  
relations. This, nevertheless, will multiply it an infinity of times  
and leads to many-worlds, which are somehow confirmed by the  
observation if we agree that there is no wave-collapse (Everett).


To sum up, with Mechanism, some pattern exist independently of the  
observer, but most will make sense only relative to some observer,  
i.e. some universal number.





A number of familiar problems then re-emerge, which blur my ability  
to distinguish between foreground and background.


That is why a strong, yet natural, hypothesis can help, like (Digital)  
Mechanism. In that case it is a fractal similar to the Mandelbrot set  
(to simplify and shorten things).
Then incompleteness refutes Socrates critics of Theaetetus' definition  
of the knower (the logic of []p & p does differ from the logic of []p,  
even in the case of p <-> []p, as we get with the basic elementary  
arithmetic sentences (sigma_1-sentences).
This might explain why some blurring is unavoidable, and why all  
universal number, from its first person point of view, can't  
distinguish the foreground and the background. Such distinction is  
intrinsically complex and universal machine related.


Bruno




Dai

On 13/10/16 11:32, Karl Javorszky wrote:

Do patterns contain information?


--
-

Professor David (Dai) Griffiths
Professor of Education
School of Education and Psychology
The University of Bolton
Deane Road
Bolton, BL3 5AB

Office: T3 02
http://www.bolton.ac.uk/IEC

SKYPE: daigriffiths
UK Mobile +44 (0)749151559
Spanish Mobile: + 34 687955912
Work: + 44 (0)7826917705
(Please don't leave voicemail)
email:
  d.e.griffi...@bolton.ac.uk
  dai.griffith...@gmail.com

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Scientific communication (from Mark)

[Jose Javier Blanco Rivero]

Dear Fis members,

I have followed with interest the discussion and I have not intervened
until now since I am just a beginner in information theory. But from my
background in systems theory (Luhmann) and intellectual history, the
questions raised here are familiar to me. Louis has differentiated between
meaning and information, as I see it. And I think that distinction is of
particular relevance for social systems, such as science. Social systems
process meaning and information as well. They process meaning through
semantics. So science develops concepts and discusses about them.
Information is processed by the code of the science system, producing
redundance and variety at once. The permanent reproduction of meaning make
differences that lead an observer (maybe science itself) to indicate or
mark the 'apophatic', non linguistic, meaning surplus (Ricoeur), la penuria
lingüística (Gadamer)... Hermann Haken's concept of information adaptation
has been useful to me to illustrate this point: the difference between
Shannons information and semantic information and their feedback. Although
Haken does not properly distinguishes between meaning and information.
I am sorry if I'm leading astray the discussion.

Best regards,

Javier Blanco
El oct 14, 2016 2:59 p.m., "Louis H Kauffman"  escribió:

> Dear Dai,
> Consider the pattern
> .142857142857142857142857142857142857142857…
> In our world of observers and technology, this pattern is constructed so
> that it can be transmitted verbatim by this computer system to you.
> No meaning is transmitted, just the list of numbers. Even the fact that
> the pattern repeats is not evident just from the finite list of symbols.
> You, as an observer, “know” that the “three dots: …” indicates indefinite
> repetition. And you know about infinite decimals, so the dot at the
> beginning of the string
> indicates to you that this is an infinite decimal number.
> With that in mind, you can operate on the pattern and deduce that it is
> representing 1/7. You know that we are communicating about
> a delicate choice of actions and that  I have signaled to you that the
> 7-th action is to be preferred. Unfortunately, any eavesdropper (another
> observer) would probably come to the same conclusions, so this is not a
> very good cipher! The point is, that no matter how radical is our
> constructivism, we have to admit that we are capable of sending , not
> meaning, but literal
> patterns that can be reproduced quite faithfully over various modes of
> transmission. Meaning is not transmitted, but physical relationships and
> orders of symbols are recorded and exchanged. The information in the
> pattern is dependent upon the observer. The kids in my math class will only
> get up to the 1/7. They will not know anything about the delicate and
> life-changing decision that the 7 represents. The key information in the
> cipher is not in the cipher. It is a potential that can emerge from an
> appropriate observer in the presence of the cipher.
> Note that the observer needs extra information. He needs to know that
> agent LK sent it and that it is not just an exercise in an elementary
> mathematics book.
> Best,
> Lou Kauffman
>
> > On Oct 14, 2016, at 9:16 AM, Dai Griffiths 
> wrote:
> >
> > To trying to answer this question, I find myself asking "Do patterns
> exist without an observer?".
> >
> > A number of familiar problems then re-emerge, which blur my ability to
> distinguish between foreground and background.
> >
> > Dai
> >
> > On 13/10/16 11:32, Karl Javorszky wrote:
> >> Do patterns contain information?
> >
> > --
> > -
> >
> > Professor David (Dai) Griffiths
> > Professor of Education
> > School of Education and Psychology
> > The University of Bolton
> > Deane Road
> > Bolton, BL3 5AB
> >
> > Office: T3 02
> > http://www.bolton.ac.uk/IEC
> >
> > SKYPE: daigriffiths
> > UK Mobile +44 (0)749151559
> > Spanish Mobile: + 34 687955912
> > Work: + 44 (0)7826917705
> > (Please don't leave voicemail)
> > email:
> >   d.e.griffi...@bolton.ac.uk
> >   dai.griffith...@gmail.com
> >
> > ___
> > Fis mailing list
> > Fis@listas.unizar.es
> > http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>
___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Scientific communication (from Mark)

[Louis H Kauffman]

Dear Dai,
Consider the pattern 
.142857142857142857142857142857142857142857…
In our world of observers and technology, this pattern is constructed so that 
it can be transmitted verbatim by this computer system to you.
No meaning is transmitted, just the list of numbers. Even the fact that the 
pattern repeats is not evident just from the finite list of symbols.
You, as an observer, “know” that the “three dots: …” indicates indefinite 
repetition. And you know about infinite decimals, so the dot at the beginning 
of the string
indicates to you that this is an infinite decimal number. 
With that in mind, you can operate on the pattern and deduce that it is 
representing 1/7. You know that we are communicating about 
a delicate choice of actions and that  I have signaled to you that the 7-th 
action is to be preferred. Unfortunately, any eavesdropper (another observer) 
would probably come to the same conclusions, so this is not a very good cipher! 
The point is, that no matter how radical is our constructivism, we have to 
admit that we are capable of sending , not meaning, but literal
patterns that can be reproduced quite faithfully over various modes of 
transmission. Meaning is not transmitted, but physical relationships and orders 
of symbols are recorded and exchanged. The information in the pattern is 
dependent upon the observer. The kids in my math class will only get up to the 
1/7. They will not know anything about the delicate and life-changing decision 
that the 7 represents. The key information in the cipher is not in the cipher. 
It is a potential that can emerge from an appropriate observer in the presence 
of the cipher.
Note that the observer needs extra information. He needs to know that agent LK 
sent it and that it is not just an exercise in an elementary mathematics book.
Best,
Lou Kauffman

> On Oct 14, 2016, at 9:16 AM, Dai Griffiths  wrote:
> 
> To trying to answer this question, I find myself asking "Do patterns exist 
> without an observer?".
> 
> A number of familiar problems then re-emerge, which blur my ability to 
> distinguish between foreground and background.
> 
> Dai
> 
> On 13/10/16 11:32, Karl Javorszky wrote:
>> Do patterns contain information?
> 
> -- 
> -
> 
> Professor David (Dai) Griffiths
> Professor of Education
> School of Education and Psychology
> The University of Bolton
> Deane Road
> Bolton, BL3 5AB
> 
> Office: T3 02
> http://www.bolton.ac.uk/IEC
> 
> SKYPE: daigriffiths
> UK Mobile +44 (0)749151559
> Spanish Mobile: + 34 687955912
> Work: + 44 (0)7826917705
> (Please don't leave voicemail)
> email:
>   d.e.griffi...@bolton.ac.uk
>   dai.griffith...@gmail.com
> 
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Scientific communication (from Mark)

[John Collier]

Peirce's answer is a definite "yes", and is a form pf realism. The idea that 
patterns require an observer is the basis for nominalism, which was adopted by 
most empiricists like Locke and Hume. Plato, though, was also a nominalist, 
though the reasoning is not so straight-forward. The empiricist Berkeley, with 
his requirement of God's observation, is an objective idealism, but 
nominalistic nonetheless, in line with the other British Empiricists of his era.

John Collier
Emeritus Professor and Senior Research Associate
Philosophy, University of KwaZulu-Natal
http://web.ncf.ca/collier

> -Original Message-
> From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Dai Griffiths
> Sent: Friday, 14 October 2016 4:16 PM
> To: fis@listas.unizar.es
> Subject: Re: [Fis] Scientific communication (from Mark)
> 
> To trying to answer this question, I find myself asking "Do patterns exist
> without an observer?".
> 
> A number of familiar problems then re-emerge, which blur my ability to
> distinguish between foreground and background.
> 
> Dai
> 
> On 13/10/16 11:32, Karl Javorszky wrote:
> > Do patterns contain information?
> 
> --
> -
> 
> Professor David (Dai) Griffiths
> Professor of Education
> School of Education and Psychology
> The University of Bolton
> Deane Road
> Bolton, BL3 5AB
> 
> Office: T3 02
> http://www.bolton.ac.uk/IEC
> 
> SKYPE: daigriffiths
> UK Mobile +44 (0)749151559
> Spanish Mobile: + 34 687955912
> Work: + 44 (0)7826917705
> (Please don't leave voicemail)
> email:
> d.e.griffi...@bolton.ac.uk
> dai.griffith...@gmail.com
> 
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Scientific communication (from Mark)

[Dai Griffiths]

To trying to answer this question, I find myself asking "Do patterns 
exist without an observer?".


A number of familiar problems then re-emerge, which blur my ability to 
distinguish between foreground and background.


Dai

On 13/10/16 11:32, Karl Javorszky wrote:

Do patterns contain information?


--
-

Professor David (Dai) Griffiths
Professor of Education
School of Education and Psychology
The University of Bolton
Deane Road
Bolton, BL3 5AB

Office: T3 02
http://www.bolton.ac.uk/IEC

SKYPE: daigriffiths
UK Mobile +44 (0)749151559
Spanish Mobile: + 34 687955912
Work: + 44 (0)7826917705
(Please don't leave voicemail)
email:
   d.e.griffi...@bolton.ac.uk
   dai.griffith...@gmail.com

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Scientific communication (from Mark)

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear Mark and colleagues, 

 

Loet, clearly the redundancy is apophatic, although one has to be cautious
in saying this: the domain of the apophatic is bigger than the domain of
Shannon redundancy. At some point in the future we may do better in
developing measurement techniques for 'surprise' in communication (I wonder
if Lou Kauffman's Recursive Distinguishing is a way forwards...). 

 

The extension of the redundancy is not primarily a matter of measurement
techniques, but of theorizing. The redundancy depends on the specification
of the system. The Shannon-type information is empirical, but only the
specification of the system enables us to specify the H(max) and therefore
the redundancy.

 

As the system grows, it may develop new dimensions which are manifest as
bifurcations. (Reaction-diffusion dynamics; Rashevsky, Turing.) When one
goes from one dimension n to a two-dimensional system [n,m], the number of
options [H(max)] goes from log(n) to log(n * m), and thus the redundancy
increases rapidly. 

 

For example: as long as transport over the Alps is limited to passes like
the Brenner, the capacity can become exhausted. Digging tunnels or flying
over the Alps adds degrees of freedom to the transport system. The number of
options (n * m * k * ..) can "explode" by cultural and technological
developments.  The transitions come as surprises (e.g., the demise of the
Soviet-Union). Suddenly, the relevant systems definitions have to be
revised.

 

The systems definitions have the status of hypotheses. Hypotheses can be
considered as theoretically informed expectations. The world of expectations
proliferates with a dynamic different from the actualizations. The two
realms are coupled since the actualizations can be considered as
instantiations of the order of expectations; but only if the latter is
specified as different from the empirical order of realizations.

 

Best,

Loet

 

  _  

Loet Leydesdorff 

Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)

  l...@leydesdorff.net ;
 http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 
Associate Faculty,   SPRU, University of
Sussex; 

Guest Professor   Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou;
Visiting Professor,   ISTIC,
Beijing;

Visiting Professor,   Birkbeck, University of London;


 
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en

 

 

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Scientific communication (from Mark)

[PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ]

De: Mark Johnson [johnsonm...@gmail.com],



Dear Dai, Rafael, Loet and all,

Thank you for your comments - the theological connection interests me
because it potentially presents a paradigm of a more vulnerable
and open dialogue.

Loet, clearly the redundancy is apophatic, although one has to be
cautious in saying this: the domain of the apophatic is bigger than
the domain of Shannon redundancy. At some point in the future we may
do better in developing measurement techniques for 'surprise' in
communication (I wonder if Lou Kauffman's Recursive Distinguishing is
a way forwards...). Shannon's formulae have served us well because
we've constrained our digital world around them. "Surprise", from a
phenomenological perspective, is a much more slippery thing than the
measure of probability. There are, as Keynes and others identified,
fundamental ontological assumptions about induction which do not
appear to be sound in probabilistic thinking. These questions are not
separable from questions about the nature of empirical reasoning
itself (Keynes used Hume as his reference point), and by extension,
about the communication between scientists. I still don't know what
information is; I've simply found it more helpful and constructive to
think about constraint, and Shannon redundancy presents itself as a
fairly simple thing to play with.

Back to scientific communication, I've been looking at David Bohm
whose thoughts on dialogue are closely related to his thinking about
physics, and to my own concern for constraint. He writes:

"when one comes to do something (and not merely to talk about it or
think about it), one tends to believe that one already is listening to
the other person in a proper way. It seems then that the main trouble
is that the other person is the one who is prejudiced and not
listening. After all, it is easy for each one of us to see that other
people are 'blocked' about certain questions, so that without being
aware of it, they are avoiding the confrontation of contradictions in
certain ideas that may be extremely dear to them. The very nature of
such a 'block' is, however, that it is a kind of insensitivity of
"anaesthesia" about one's own contradictions." (Bohm, "On Dialogue",
p.4)

The blocks are complex, but "published work" and "reputation" are
important factors in establishing them. I was at a conference last
week where a highly established figure castigated a young PhD student
who was giving an excellent but challenging presentation: "have you
read ANY of my books?!". The student dealt with the attack elegantly;
everyone else thought it revealed rather more about the constraints of
ego of the questioner (confirming a few suspicions they might have had
beforehand!)

Our practices of "Not communicating" in science are, I think,
well-demonstrated by considering this encounter between Richard
Dawkins, Rowan Williams and Anthony Kenny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bow4nnh1Wv0

I think it's worth pointing out the constraints (or "blocks") of their
respective
positions, which (particularly in Dawkins case) are very clearly on
display. My reading of this is that they attempt to communicate by
coordinating terminology/explanations/etc. All the time they are aware
of the fact that they have fundamentally different constraints: there
is no overlap of constraint, and really no communication. The medium
of the discussion is part
of the problem: it structures itself around the 'topics' for debate,
and then it becomes a matter of not making oneself vulnerable within
that frame (this is what Bohm advocated avoiding). Yet for
communication (or dialogue) to take place between
these people, mutual vulnerability (I suggest) would have to be the
starting point. The discussion is also framed by the history and
reputation established through the each participant's published work.

One of the reasons why I mentioned the theological work (and why I
think this is important) is that it is much harder to talk about
theology without making oneself vulnerable - or at least, an
invulnerable theology comes across as dogmatism... of the kind that in
this instance, is most clearly exemplified by Dawkins!

What's missing is usually our vulnerability.

Best wishes,

Mark

--
Dr. Mark William Johnson
Institute of Learning and Teaching
Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
University of Liverpool

Phone: 07786 064505
Email: johnsonm...@gmail.com
Blog: http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear Mark, 

 

The redundancy is apophatic. Redundancy is not "given", but generation by the 
specification of a model: what is specified as a system. Redundancy can also be 
considered as options other than the ones realized. As we argued in our 
Kybernetes paper, technological developments may enlarge the number of options 
by orders of magnitude. The redundancy and maximum entropy can then proliferate 
much faster than the realizations. This development of the economy is knowledge 
based. 

 

How can we study and operationalize redundancy or the apophatic? By studying 
and improving our models which generate them in the reflection. In operational 
terms, by the specification of informed hypotheses. Our imagination enables us 
to envisage options other than the ones realized and the communication 
(discourse) can entertain models that provide a phase space of options, other 
than realized or imagined. Hypotheses can be tested and modified.

 

Best,

Loet

 


Loet Leydesdorff, Inga Ivanova, and Mark Johnson, The Communication of 
Expectations and Individual Understanding: Redundancy as Reduction of 
Uncertainty, and the Processing of Meaning <http://ssrn.com/abstract=2358791> , 
Kybernetes 43(9/10) (2014) 1362-1371.

 

Loet Leydesdorff 

Professor, University of Amsterdam

Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)

l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 

Associate Faculty, SPRU, University of Sussex; 

Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing;

Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; 

http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en

 

-Original Message-
From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Mark Johnson
Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2016 10:04 AM
To: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing

 

Dear Sergej, Rafeal, Loet, Dai and list,

 

First of all, thank you very much for the references – Gieryn looks fascinating 
(thanks Loet), and I will check out the Hobart and Schiffman (thanks to Pedro). 
It always strikes me how powerful acts of intellectual generosity are, and how 
much difference there is between pointing to a reference as if to say “This is 
the gang of academics who either agree with me or I disagree with them!” and 
“As someone who’s travelled along a similar path to you, I believe you might 
find this enlightening”. When we write academic papers, we tend to (indeed, 
have to) do the former. The latter is far more empathic - which leads me to 
reflect on Rafael’s comment about pre-understanding (I say more about this 
further down) On a forum like FIS, we can do the latter. I ask myself which is 
more useful or constructive in scientific discourse, and which should be 
encouraged?

 

Between the comments of Dai and Sergej I think there is what Pedro refers to as 
the ‘critical stance’ (as in critical theory etc, I guess). Here I would like 
to clarify my position. I do not believe that we “ought” to change the way we 
communicate about science because publishers and universities have too much 
power; that they have too much power is a systemic consequence of something 
else. Rather the argument is that the nature of the science we now practice 
(complex, uncertain, contingent) necessitates new forms of communication, and 
this science cannot effectively communicate itself through traditional media. 
It is not an argument about ‘oughts’, it is an argument about the ontology of 
complex science and communication; it is a complex science reflection on the 
communication of complex scientists.

 

That we currently have complex science and highly attenuated channels of 
communication is a source of pathology: we are at a transitional stage in 
history and such periods are often accompanied by all manner of social and 
political problems (just think of the pathologies of the early 1600s!). One 
feature of this is that we slip from talking about ‘is’ to ‘ought’ without 
reflection. I’m unconvinced by the power of political arguments (however much 
our professors of sociology would like to persuade us otherwise!) for moving 
things on – it only encourages what Bacon criticized in the Cambridge academics 
of the

1600s: “They hunt more after words than matter” (I worry about words like 
‘entanglement’ – what does it mean?); it is scientific arguments and practices 
which carry the greatest power and which (in the end) are ontologically 
inseparable from political change. I suspect the distinctions between different 
kind of arguments are the result of different kinds of constraint.

 

Having said all this about science, I want to say something about

theology(!) Rafael’s point about “pre-understanding” sent me to the work of 
Arthur Peacocke and to the relationship between ‘information’

and ‘logos’. To see information as constraint in both in the science we do, and 
in the way we communicate our scientific understanding,

Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing

[Mark Johnson]

y as if by right (where else would you go), are now forced to take
> an active role in order to maintain their preeminence in the new
> technological environment. They use their existing position to avert threats
> to their future control, through coordination  on policy, regulation and law
> (e.g. right of access to papers, brought into sharp focus by the tragic
> death of Aaron Swartz a couple of years ago).
>
> In a separate dynamic, technology is being used to manage these changes,
> which are themselves given impetus by the alignment of technology with
> managerial methods (Key Performance Indicators, etc), and with the business
> models of financialisation, privatisation and precarious employment.
>
> I don't think we will get to the bottom of these matters, still less change
> them, without engaging with the processes in a political way, however good
> our analysis of technology per se may be.
>
> Now I'll go off to check out Sci-Hub, ... or maybe I'll wait until I leave
> the office and get home.
>
> Dai
>
>
>>
>> 
>> From: Fis [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff
>> [l...@leydesdorff.net]
>> Sent: 27 September 2016 08:27
>> To: 'Moisés André Nisenbaum'; 'Mark Johnson'; 'fis'
>>
>> Subject: Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing
>>
>> Dear Mark, Moises, and colleagues,
>>
>> I agree that this is a very beautiful piece of work. The video is
>> impressive.
>>
>> My comment would focus on what it is that constructs reality "by language"
>> (p. 2). I agree with the remark about the risk of a linguistic fallacy; but
>> how is the domain of counterfactual expectations constructed? The answer in
>> the paper tends towards a sociological explanation: "status" for which one
>> competes in a new political economy. However, it seems to me that the
>> selection mechanism has to be specified. Can this be external to the
>> communication? How is the paradigmatic/epistemic closure and quality control
>> brought about by the communication? How is a symbolic layer shaped and
>> coded?
>>
>> One cannot reverse the reasoning: the editorial boards follow standards
>> that they perceive as relevant and can reproduce. The standards are not a
>> convention of the board since one would not easily agree. Reversing the
>> reasoning would bring us back to interests and thus to a kind of neo-marxism
>> a la the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK). In actor-network theory
>> (ANT) the emergence of standards happens historically/evolutionarily, but is
>> not explained.
>>
>> I don't have answers on my side. But perhaps, the strength of anticipation
>> and the role of models needs to be explored. Models can be entertained and
>> enable us to reconstruct a knowledge-based reality.
>>
>> Best,
>> Loet
>>
>>
>> Loet Leydesdorff
>> Professor, University of Amsterdam
>> Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
>> l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
>> Associate Faculty, SPRU, University of Sussex;
>> Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC,
>> Beijing;
>> Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London;
>> http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en
>>
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Moisés André
>> Nisenbaum
>> Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 1:45 AM
>> To: Mark Johnson
>> Cc: fis
>> Subject: Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing
>>
>> Dear Mark.
>>
>> Thank you for the excelent video and article. It is very important to
>> discuss this and, if you agree, I will use your video with my students (can
>> you send me the transcription?).
>> No doubt we are in a changing world and we have to fight against abusive
>> processes, like publication industry.
>>
>> In Rafael's article, the question “what is a scientific journal in the
>> digital age?” I understand that we must think outside the box. I think it
>> would be great if some group invent a kind of "Uber" of scientific
>> production. Something that connect directly authors and readers at feasible
>> rates.  arXiv does this connection in some way, but it is not universal.
>> E-science is also a good initiative.
>>
>> Related to this discussion, UNESCO will do an event on Wednesday
>> (sep/28th) at Museu do Amanhã (Rio de Janeiro) called International Day
>> for Universal Access to Information (http://en.unesco.or

Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing

[Dai Griffiths]

Dear Mark, and all,

Great videos. Sorry to be slow on this important theme, I have just got 
back from some intensive travel in China.


Mark asks at the end of the first video "why (in an uncertain world) do 
we continue to put so much emphasis on the academic journal".


In answering, I would not disagree with any of Mark's comments, but I 
would stress the policy and political entanglement of technology. In the 
past there was no alternative to print media, and so no need to enforce 
the hegemony of the journal in the ways that Mark has outlined. The 
publishers and universities who were passive recipients of the tribute 
of the academic community as if by right (where else would you go), are 
now forced to take an active role in order to maintain their preeminence 
in the new technological environment. They use their existing position 
to avert threats to their future control, through coordination  on 
policy, regulation and law (e.g. right of access to papers, brought into 
sharp focus by the tragic death of Aaron Swartz a couple of years ago).


In a separate dynamic, technology is being used to manage these changes, 
which are themselves given impetus by the alignment of technology with 
managerial methods (Key Performance Indicators, etc), and with the 
business models of financialisation, privatisation and precarious 
employment.


I don't think we will get to the bottom of these matters, still less 
change them, without engaging with the processes in a political way, 
however good our analysis of technology per se may be.


Now I'll go off to check out Sci-Hub, ... or maybe I'll wait until I 
leave the office and get home.


Dai





From: Fis [fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] on behalf of Loet Leydesdorff 
[l...@leydesdorff.net]
Sent: 27 September 2016 08:27
To: 'Moisés André Nisenbaum'; 'Mark Johnson'; 'fis'
Subject: Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing

Dear Mark, Moises, and colleagues,

I agree that this is a very beautiful piece of work. The video is impressive.

My comment would focus on what it is that constructs reality "by language" (p. 2). I 
agree with the remark about the risk of a linguistic fallacy; but how is the domain of 
counterfactual expectations constructed? The answer in the paper tends towards a sociological 
explanation: "status" for which one competes in a new political economy. However, it 
seems to me that the selection mechanism has to be specified. Can this be external to the 
communication? How is the paradigmatic/epistemic closure and quality control brought about by the 
communication? How is a symbolic layer shaped and coded?

One cannot reverse the reasoning: the editorial boards follow standards that 
they perceive as relevant and can reproduce. The standards are not a convention 
of the board since one would not easily agree. Reversing the reasoning would 
bring us back to interests and thus to a kind of neo-marxism a la the sociology 
of scientific knowledge (SSK). In actor-network theory (ANT) the emergence of 
standards happens historically/evolutionarily, but is not explained.

I don't have answers on my side. But perhaps, the strength of anticipation and 
the role of models needs to be explored. Models can be entertained and enable 
us to reconstruct a knowledge-based reality.

Best,
Loet


Loet Leydesdorff
Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/
Associate Faculty, SPRU, University of Sussex;
Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing;
Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London;
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en


-Original Message-
From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Moisés André 
Nisenbaum
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 1:45 AM
To: Mark Johnson
Cc: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing

Dear Mark.

Thank you for the excelent video and article. It is very important to discuss 
this and, if you agree, I will use your video with my students (can you send me 
the transcription?).
No doubt we are in a changing world and we have to fight against abusive 
processes, like publication industry.

In Rafael's article, the question “what is a scientific journal in the digital age?” I 
understand that we must think outside the box. I think it would be great if some group 
invent a kind of "Uber" of scientific production. Something that connect 
directly authors and readers at feasible rates.  arXiv does this connection in some way, 
but it is not universal. E-science is also a good initiative.

Related to this discussion, UNESCO will do an event on Wednesday
(sep/28th) at Museu do Amanhã (Rio de Janeiro) called International Day for 
Universal Access to Information (http://en.unesco.org/iduai2016).

But the fact is: we are human and the worry about &qu

Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing

[Pedro C. Marijuan]

Dear Mark and Colleagues,

Thanks for the well crafted work. Actually you have presented us a 
tightly linked work along perspectives of philosophical, historical, and 
present day criticisms stances. For my taste, Sections 1 and 2 are a 
matter of opinion, of philosophical orientation, closer in this case to 
critical stances. Speech social-construction, status function, scarcity 
declaration, communication definition, information-uncertainty sciences, 
etc. Some of these topics are or have been subject to hot debate in this 
list, so I decline entering--anyhow, my personal impression is that such 
kind of oriented approach although formally consistent, leave aside 
important aspects of the phenomenon. But it is good that you have made 
the consistent scheme.


Historically, the parallel between publication in that transitional 
period of the "scientific revolution" and our times of "information 
revolution" is well developed. Just to enlarge the panorama, I recommend 
/Information Ages/. Literacy, Numeracy, and the Computer Revolution. 
Michael E. Hobart and Zachary S. Schiffman. (2000). The publication 
practices around the "papiri era", culminating in the Alexandrian 
Library, and the "codices era", around the monastic system first and 
later around the university system are the two big precedents. The 
underlying phenomenon in all eras revolves around the "sharing of 
knowledge", a genuine cognitive instinct that is channeled in different 
ways by existing social orders and available technical resources. Not 
much different from the artistic pulsion--and often closely interlinked 
(paradigmatic Leonardo da Vinci).


In our times, there is a famous sentence by premier Zhou Enlai "It is 
too early to say"... However personally I share most of the concerns 
raised by Mark, adding a pessimistic note on the impact that the new 
techs are having in the "creative engine" of science. Although multiple 
new fields have been open thanks to the computer upheaval (precision 
medicine, omic revolution, nanosciences, social physics, social 
neurosceince, social networks, big data everywhere, etc etc), the 
amazing bounty has been accompanied by new problems. On the one side a 
new aristocracy related to big sceince projects and techno-utopian 
goals, more and more distanced of the common researcher, plus an 
enormous increase of computer-mediated bureaucratization. Besides, the 
really easy communication tools and the multiplicity of channels have 
derived in an unselected overflow that impacts negatively on the slow 
reflection needed in science: rushing from screen to screen, no time to 
think. Something similar is happening in technically mediated social 
relationships--terrible for instance in adolescents. If we are going 
toward a symbiosis man-machine, the prospects are not fascinating.


Well, these are comments from a late baby boomer, hardly adapted to the 
new order...

Best greetings to all
--Pedro




I El 26/09/2016 a las 9:55, Mark Johnson escribió:
Dear FIS Colleagues, To kick-start the discussion on scientific 
publishing, I have prepared a short (hopefully provocative) video. It 
can be found at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bh3vqM98-U (if 
anyone's interested, the software I used for producing it is

called 'Videoscribe')

I have also produced a paper which is attached.

I hope you find these interesting and stimulating!

Best wishes,

Mark


___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis



--
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Tfno. +34 976 71 3526 (& 6818)
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing

[Loet Leydesdorff]

Dear Mark, Moises, and colleagues, 

I agree that this is a very beautiful piece of work. The video is impressive. 

My comment would focus on what it is that constructs reality "by language" (p. 
2). I agree with the remark about the risk of a linguistic fallacy; but how is 
the domain of counterfactual expectations constructed? The answer in the paper 
tends towards a sociological explanation: "status" for which one competes in a 
new political economy. However, it seems to me that the selection mechanism has 
to be specified. Can this be external to the communication? How is the 
paradigmatic/epistemic closure and quality control brought about by the 
communication? How is a symbolic layer shaped and coded?

One cannot reverse the reasoning: the editorial boards follow standards that 
they perceive as relevant and can reproduce. The standards are not a convention 
of the board since one would not easily agree. Reversing the reasoning would 
bring us back to interests and thus to a kind of neo-marxism a la the sociology 
of scientific knowledge (SSK). In actor-network theory (ANT) the emergence of 
standards happens historically/evolutionarily, but is not explained. 

I don't have answers on my side. But perhaps, the strength of anticipation and 
the role of models needs to be explored. Models can be entertained and enable 
us to reconstruct a knowledge-based reality.

Best,
Loet 


Loet Leydesdorff 
Professor, University of Amsterdam
Amsterdam School of Communication Research (ASCoR)
l...@leydesdorff.net ; http://www.leydesdorff.net/ 
Associate Faculty, SPRU, University of Sussex; 
Guest Professor Zhejiang Univ., Hangzhou; Visiting Professor, ISTIC, Beijing;
Visiting Professor, Birkbeck, University of London; 
http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=ych9gNYJ=en


-Original Message-
From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Moisés André 
Nisenbaum
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2016 1:45 AM
To: Mark Johnson
Cc: fis
Subject: Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing

Dear Mark.

Thank you for the excelent video and article. It is very important to discuss 
this and, if you agree, I will use your video with my students (can you send me 
the transcription?).
No doubt we are in a changing world and we have to fight against abusive 
processes, like publication industry.

In Rafael's article, the question “what is a scientific journal in the digital 
age?” I understand that we must think outside the box. I think it would be 
great if some group invent a kind of "Uber" of scientific production. Something 
that connect directly authors and readers at feasible rates.  arXiv does this 
connection in some way, but it is not universal. E-science is also a good 
initiative.

Related to this discussion, UNESCO will do an event on Wednesday
(sep/28th) at Museu do Amanhã (Rio de Janeiro) called International Day for 
Universal Access to Information (http://en.unesco.org/iduai2016).

But the fact is: we are human and the worry about "reputation" is the real 
reason of today's organization of scientific communication (about this, this 
book chapter is very good: VAN RAAN, Anthony FJ. The interdisciplinary nature 
of science: theoretical framework and bibliometric-empirical approach. 
Practising interdisciplinarity, p.
66-78, 2000.)

Kind regards,

Moisés



2016-09-26 4:55 GMT-03:00 Mark Johnson <johnsonm...@gmail.com>:
>
> Dear FIS Colleagues,
>
> To kick-start the discussion on scientific publishing, I have prepared 
> a short (hopefully provocative) video. It can be found at:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bh3vqM98-U
>
> (if anyone's interested, the software I used for producing it is 
> called 'Videoscribe')
>
> I have also produced a paper which is attached.
>
> I hope you find these interesting and stimulating!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Mark
> --
> Dr. Mark William Johnson
> Institute of Learning and Teaching
> Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
> University of Liverpool
>
> Phone: 07786 064505
> Email: johnsonm...@gmail.com
> Blog: http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>



--
Moisés André Nisenbaum
Doutorando IBICT/UFRJ. Professor. Msc.
Instituto Federal do Rio de Janeiro - IFRJ Campus Rio de Janeiro 
moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis


___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing

[Moisés André Nisenbaum]

Dear Mark.

Thank you for the excelent video and article. It is very important to
discuss this and, if you agree, I will use your video with my students
(can you send me the transcription?).
No doubt we are in a changing world and we have to fight against
abusive processes, like publication industry.

In Rafael's article, the question “what is a scientific journal in the
digital age?” I understand that we must think outside the box. I think
it would be great if some group invent a kind of "Uber" of scientific
production. Something that connect directly authors and readers at
feasible rates.  arXiv does this connection in some way, but it is not
universal. E-science is also a good initiative.

Related to this discussion, UNESCO will do an event on Wednesday
(sep/28th) at Museu do Amanhã (Rio de Janeiro) called International
Day for Universal Access to Information
(http://en.unesco.org/iduai2016).

But the fact is: we are human and the worry about "reputation" is the
real reason of today's organization of scientific communication (about
this, this book chapter is very good: VAN RAAN, Anthony FJ. The
interdisciplinary nature of science: theoretical framework and
bibliometric-empirical approach. Practising interdisciplinarity, p.
66-78, 2000.)

Kind regards,

Moisés



2016-09-26 4:55 GMT-03:00 Mark Johnson :
>
> Dear FIS Colleagues,
>
> To kick-start the discussion on scientific publishing, I have prepared
> a short (hopefully provocative) video. It can be found at:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bh3vqM98-U
>
> (if anyone's interested, the software I used for producing it is
> called 'Videoscribe')
>
> I have also produced a paper which is attached.
>
> I hope you find these interesting and stimulating!
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Mark
> --
> Dr. Mark William Johnson
> Institute of Learning and Teaching
> Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
> University of Liverpool
>
> Phone: 07786 064505
> Email: johnsonm...@gmail.com
> Blog: http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com
>
> ___
> Fis mailing list
> Fis@listas.unizar.es
> http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
>



-- 
Moisés André Nisenbaum
Doutorando IBICT/UFRJ. Professor. Msc.
Instituto Federal do Rio de Janeiro - IFRJ
Campus Rio de Janeiro
moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing

[Rafael Capurro]

Dear Mark,

thanks for your inspiring and indeed provocative presentation.
Just some few remarks/questions about:
1) was it since the 16th and 17th century also a nationalistic issue 
when claiming who was the first one to have done a 'discovery' and is it 
in a different way still today? Do you know of any analysis on this?
2) You describe the changes of _scientific_ publication and particularly 
the issue of journals that have to do with the shorter time of 
'discoveries' (journals=jours=days) with the rise of modern empirical 
science. Where is the difference with regard to the humanities and 
literature? The role of copyright (including patents) is, as you know, 
changing and you point to this indirectly at the end of your video 
presentation which I very much share. But the economic (and national?) 
power of big players is still there, creating scarcity in a time of 
(potential) digital abundance of 'information'
3) A few months ago I wrote a paper (in Spanish) on: "What is a 
scientific journal?" with similar insights to the ones you present

http://informatio.eubca.edu.uy/ojs/index.php/Infor/issue/view/16/showToc
best regards
Rafael


Dear FIS Colleagues,

To kick-start the discussion on scientific publishing, I have prepared
a short (hopefully provocative) video. It can be found at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bh3vqM98-U

(if anyone's interested, the software I used for producing it is
called 'Videoscribe')

I have also produced a paper which is attached.

I hope you find these interesting and stimulating!

Best wishes,

Mark


___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis



--
Prof.em. Dr. Rafael Capurro
Hochschule der Medien (HdM), Stuttgart, Germany
Capurro Fiek Foundation for Information Ethics 
(http://www.capurro-fiek-foundation.org)
Distinguished Researcher at the African Centre of Excellence for Information 
Ethics (ACEIE), Department of Information Science, University of Pretoria, 
South Africa.
Chair, International Center for Information Ethics (ICIE) (http://icie.zkm.de)
Editor in Chief, International Review of Information Ethics (IRIE) 
(http://www.i-r-i-e.net)
Postal Address: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany
E-Mail: raf...@capurro.de
Voice: + 49 - 721 - 98 22 9 - 22 (Fax: -21)
Homepage: www.capurro.de

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing. Please resend article.

[Joseph Brenner]

Dear Mark (if I may),

I quite agree with the thesis of your published article, which is what the 
indicated link first took me to. Now, it takes me only to the Youtube and I 
have lost the article!


One should continue: if it is a 'logic of the market' that is biasing 
decisions in scientific publishing, maybe we should get rid of the 
neo-capitalist market system for this as well as other reasons! I also have 
some comments on Bhaskar but I would like to read the article again. Many 
thanks.


Best regards,

Joseph Brenner


- Original Message - 
From: "Mark Johnson" <johnsonm...@gmail.com>

To: "fis" <fis@listas.unizar.es>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2016 9:55 AM
Subject: [Fis] Scientific Communication and Publishing



Dear FIS Colleagues,

To kick-start the discussion on scientific publishing, I have prepared
a short (hopefully provocative) video. It can be found at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Bh3vqM98-U

(if anyone's interested, the software I used for producing it is
called 'Videoscribe')

I have also produced a paper which is attached.

I hope you find these interesting and stimulating!

Best wishes,

Mark
--
Dr. Mark William Johnson
Institute of Learning and Teaching
Faculty of Health and Life Sciences
University of Liverpool

Phone: 07786 064505
Email: johnsonm...@gmail.com
Blog: http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.com








___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis



___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis