Of Ideas and Data:
Roszak sets the stage to distinguish between ideas and information. He states that, “Information may helpfully illustrate or decorate an idea; it may, where it works under the guidance of a contrasting idea, help to call other ideas into question.” He is clear to point out that information does not make ideas, as a matter of fact, ideas produce information. More importantly, his direct link to education is that he defines the role of education to “teach young minds how to deal with ideas: how to evaluate them, extend them, adapt them to new uses.” Too much information can hinder the mind, leaving one confused or disoriented.
He goes on to explain how generalizations can be made when one is encountered with facts. Depending on whether one has an abundance of information or a lack of information, one will tend to come to conclusions or generalizations regardless of the information at hand. This is done because one compensates for the lack of data by “enlarging upon” the data it has or finding a common link among the vast amounts of information it has.
Roszak continues by focusing on “Master Ideas” to clearly make his point. Master ideas are not those which we are told. Rather, it is those we come to think about through experiences in our lifetime and are the basis of our culture. He refers to several examples: Jesus died for our sins, All men are created equal, Life is a miracle, to name a few.
Computers and Pure Reason:
Roszak begins this chapter with the clear functions of the computer: storing data and processing data. Computer enthusiasts stick to their claim that the computer can be creative and lead to new ideas. However, he reverts back to the master ideas which are not ideas that have been scientifically proven or been the result of processing information but instead have been the inspiration for scientific research.
Roszak’s mentionable references:
- Marvin Minsky: in 3-8 years there will be a computer with the intelligence of the average human being. (Predication made in 1970)
- The Department of Defense is a huge proponent of Artificial Intelligence
- Ridiculous to believe that all facile remarks can be reduced to some kind of formal description—but they try
- AI research looking to take over the production process (skilled/semi skilled workers, perhaps, management). Again, as pointed out in the previous blog, what happens to people’s sense of living?
The Computer and the Counterculture:
This chapter was actually interesting in that it discussed somewhat of the evolution of the personal computer. IBM was mentioned as the giant in computer technology which primarily worked with big businesses and the Department of Defense. It continues to mention how it overlooked a major consumer in the market.
Smaller companies emerge with the determination to “free” the people. These companies were comprised of sometimes drop-out scientists who “deplored the fact that the computer was being monopolized for profit and power by the same military-industrial complex that already controlled every other major technology.”
To sum it up (in the words of a radial hacker newspaper of the 70’s): “Computers are mostly used against people instead of for people, used to control people instead of to free them. Time to change that—we need a …people’s computer company.”
Thus, from this rebellion, the Apple was born.
The Politics of Information:
Data Glut: too much information!
He mentions how Information Technology is well imbedded within politics and refers to the 1980 elections when Ronald Reagan erroneously gives information taken from simulated war games. By the time the error had been noted, the program “Star Wars” had been implemented.
We had to chuckle when we read Marshall McLuhan’s prediction in the 1960’s. He predicted that several media (television is what he had in mind) would transform the planet into more participative citizens. We don’t think he ever envisioned the junk we’re exposed to on a daily basis.
Just a side note: As a matter of fact, to take this comment one step further, it reminds us of references a few authors have made regarding the use of technology to escape reality or else the power to envision different realities (I believe Sherry Turkle also refers to the psychology behind this phenomenon in her book Life On the Screen). It’s interesting to see that TV has changed so much over time with its major focus on reality shows.
Our thoughts: - Luckily, Roszak states that ideas are integrating patterns when it satisfies the mind when it asks the question, What does this mean? What is this all about? He goes to say that one’s idea may not be the same as someone else’s. Consequently, as we read through these four chapters of Roszak’s, we, too, work to integrate patterns and ask ourselves, What is this all about? Overall, we get the idea that Roszak speaks to differentiate between ideas and information and how the brain works in relation to both. Some liken this process to the brain, however, as we understand it, Roszak, strives to exemplify that there is much more the brain takes in to formulate ideas and that a computer does not have that innate capability. To simplify human nature into the inner workings of a computer which is capable of storing data and processing it is ludicrous. Yes, it can be done, however, with limitations.
- Have we lost sight of the basic ideas of our culture? So much that we demand proof for them, otherwise, they are of no use. We don’t have faith in the master ideas. We believe that is what Roszak is attempting to emphasize. Roszak mentions that “We are gifted as a species with a crowning tangle of electrochemical cells which has become an idea-maker. So spontaneously does this brain of ours make ideas and play with ideas that we cannot say much more about them than that they are there, shaping our perceptions, opening up possibilities.” He concludes that “it would be a great loss if, by cheapening our conception of experience, memory, and insight, the cult of information blunted these creative powers.” This powerful statement is worth noting, in that we both agree that “data processing” does not come close to the dialogue we take part in when discussing issues.
- Ideas create information makes sense to us and not the other way around.
- In Computers and Pure Reason, Roszak describes the programs which are used regularly in the business world. It is quite frightening to come to this realization that most businesses do use these types of programs to do major consulting. Consumers rely on the “expertise” of the consulting firms but in reality we are allowing our decisions to be made by programs that were designed to factor in only specific criteria. In a sense, we are no longer depending on the education and skill of man, especially if man has relinquished his abilities and work to a computer. Frightening realization!
- With so much consequence of destruction of human life, why would the Department of Defense trust the “mind of a computer”??
Kerri and Marcy
10 comments:
Roszak makes the point that too much information can hinder the mind, leaving one confused or disoriented just as you both said. I believe that we are doing this to our students and I also think we, as students, become confused. Children haven't been taught how to deal with ideas and those children are growing into adults and they are still confused. I think it is also part of this day and age where it is easier not to think and to just go with the crowd.
Humans haven't mastered the concepts of thinking and ideas and trusting computers to think and do our dirty work is frightening! Computers definitely have limitations and we shouldn't be so quick to put our trust in them.
Ellen mentioned that too much information can hinder the mind, and because of this, students are becoming confused. It sounds like one solution to this could be traced back to Postman when he mentioned that we must know what "gods" we are serving in education. If we're serving many gods than of course lots of information is going to be thrown at our students. If we could decide on one god or only a couple of purposes for school, maybe this would foster our students coming up with more ideas, and less with them being consumers of information.
After a few mind numbing days of MSA examinations, I tend to agree with Ellen.
I cringed at much of what was just on the math portion of the MSA (I'd discuss specifics, but the MSA police would hunt me down, give me a week of lunch duty, revoke my teaching certificate, drag me through the streets for public stoning, and then inform me how horrible of a teacher I am for jeopardizing the integrity of the educational system by discussing a test that we do not teach to every single day).
I spent 115 days teaching what the county told me to, and often times how the county told me to teach it. We teach much of our curriculum very straight forward, or give them the concepts and expect them to be able to complete the computations. Very little of our mat curriculum involves constructivist learning (little enough that I use it whenever I can because my students not only enjoy it but often master concepts quicker that way). MSA testing has almost zero straight forward questions, it is full of tricky word problems, insane visual-spatial problems confusing to even many test examiners, and abstract ideas that often times aren’t testing whether or not a student knows math concepts and computations but can he/she think thoroughly enough to figure out what to do! After today, I may replace the phrase “like a dear in the headlights” with “like a 5th grade student taking the math MSA”.
We are not helping our students think at all anymore, we are killing their ability to do so. Is it because as Roszak suggests we now value information more than ideas? Is it because politicians can quantify school performance in numbers (test scores, AYP) which they view (and hope the public does as well) as information that proves they are good politicians?? Force feeing the public with information as a substitute for ideas isn’t anything new as Roszak points out, but with technology’s help has become that much easier.
I’m hungry, it’s time for a sandwich
Just a day ago I received an e-mail from my technology specialist about wikipedia.
The e-mail was read like this:
"Please discontinue your use and recommendations of wikipedia... it is not school district recommended and/or approved and definitely not a reliable source."
I honestly want to take a stance against Roszak only from another extreme point of view. What happens when we know too little? What happens when we withhold information that could be crucial to the child's understanding of the material that is not necessarily written and/or dictated in a curriculum or a textbook? I know in math if you miss that one important step just because your curriculum does not "cover" it, you will have lost children. Social Studies you would want to know the different view points of the different eras in history. Not just some random facts about years and events. Some of my best social studies experiences where teachers whose desire was to relive history not sit with a textbook in our nose memorizing facts.
The Wikipedia e-mail is my example of what happens when we feel that too much information is being sent, we tend to restrict access. Is that truly what we want as teachers or even a person in good faith? How about instead of restricting access like the Roszak followers would do, be able to teach them how to handle that much flow of information? Do we have the resources (time) to do it? How about can our children be taught how to handle that much information?
I honestly feel that Roszak to me is far too radical to be a solution of the issue of too much information being fed to our children.
You wrote, "Ideas create information makes sense to us and not the other way around."
I find this fascinating. Most people struggle with this concept of Roszak's, and you seem to accept it easily. For the sake of all the students who are struggling with this, can explain why you accept it so easily and what you think it means?
I understand what Chris is saying about teaching students how to handle a large flow of information some of which is reliable and some of which is not. My wish is that there wouldn't be sites like Wikipedia that anyone could post information, and pass it off as reliable and as fact. Obviously, my wish is unrealistic and instead of the problem getting solved, it's probably going to get worse as time goes on. Most likely more and more websites will be created that have an encyclopedia type look and feel, but have information posted by anyone who feels like being an expert on a particular topic.
What happens if elementary and middle school studens join in on the online posting and present what they may have overheard from an older brother or sister about certain topics such as physics and calculus? Are they in a position to teach society about these concepts? They may feel that they are since they see that anyone can post information to the web, and that it gives them a sense of power since many people may read what they post.
Does the example mentioned above promote hardwork and an attention to a subject, or does this promote laziness and an easy way out to really learning a topic and possibly becoming an expert in the field? Maybe instead of just teaching students how to recognize the unneccessary information that is on the web, teachers need to also show students how they are adding to the problem, or how they should not add to the problem.
David Marcovitz said...
You wrote, "Ideas create information makes sense to us and not the other way around."...
For the sake of all the students who are struggling with this, can explain why you accept it so easily and what you think it means?
We think it's a just a matter of perspective almost like "which came first, the chicken or the egg" concept. Of ideas, we believe, information is born. Of course, we completely can understand the way some may view the complete reversal but one has to question that at one point in time, there existed a master idea first.
I agree with Brad. Although Wikipedia could serve as a quick reference, it's important to point out that Wikipedia allows users to post reliable and accurate information, as well as, inaccurate and unreliable information on its site. The problem with this is that there are many, as Roszak points out, that believe that all that comes out of a computer is authoritative, when in fact, this is a good example of when it is not. I believe this is the reason why librarians are so adamant about pointing out, that there is a skill required to look up information and make intellectual decisions. Unfortunately, some folks don't possess that skill. Children are least likely to be able to do this. And you are absolutely right, in the Information Age, we do need to teach and reinforce this skill.
Brad mentioned the idea that if we could chose one god to serve that this may eliminate some of the information that we are throwing at our students. This sounds like a great idea, but is this a feasible idea when many of us are as Timm puts it teaching what the county told us to, and often times how the county told us to teach it?
Brad states that “My wish is that there wouldn't be sites like Wikipedia that anyone could post information, and pass it off as reliable and as fact.” Whether in the form of an encyclopedia or a typical website, in general students instantly believe that the information on attractive websites is reliable and accurate. To place a restriction on the Internet that only certain people could post information would change the idea of the Internet entirely and raise many questions. Who would these certified people be? How would one qualify? Who would create these qualifications? How could the public be certain that the certified information providers would provide reliable and unbiased information while not fulfilling a certain agenda? In a perfect world, people would not post inaccurate information with the intent of misinforming others, especially children. Until that day comes, it is imperative that students are taught to be skeptical of the information they find on the Internet and taught the skills necessary to critically analyze websites.
Post a Comment