Successful research does not obey general standards; it relies now on one trick, now on another; the moves that advance it and the standards that define what counts as an advance are not always known to the movers.
Archive | philosophy RSS feed for this section
Against Method (3)
Against Method (2)
All I say is that non-experts often know more than experts and should therefore be consulted and that prophets of truth (including those who use arguments) more often than not are carried along with a vision that clashes with the very events the vision is supposed to be exploring.
Against Method 1
I bought Paul Feyerabend’s book ”Against Method” several years ago (9th April 2005 Amazon tells me) at a time when I still planned to produce a PhD thesis but when my jumping between disciplines already had made me somewhat exhausted and disoriented. I didn’t read it at that time, and I forgot I had bought it.
Now when I have put my doctoral studies on hold I discovered it in a bookshelf and started to read it a few days ago. It is originally written in 1975 and I’m reading the third edition. After reading 20 pages I understood how dangerous the book must feel for the scientific elite and why it was never mentioned during any of the courses I have attended during my studies. It should, I think, be mentioned together with Popper and Kuhn. But because it is posing a threat against normal science, it isn’t.
Anyway, I plan cite some passages from the book in this blog and comment on some of them during the coming weeks. Let’s start here with a statement where the first sentence is quite provoking, but it is softened up by the following two:
Science must be protected from ideologies; and societies, especially democratic societies, must be protected from science. This does not mean that scientists cannot profit from a philosophical education and that humanity has not and never will profit from the sciences. However, the profits should not be imposed; they should be examined and freely accepted by the parties of the exchange.
Writing and acting
It is sure important to write things down. But sometimes we think writing down things will make the things we write down come true. My favorite example is TQM-systems implemented in a mechanical way in knowledge organizations. Sure some people get a kick (and quite a few some money) out of doing that exercise, but I think the most clever of them do realize that it is just a theater as long as they are dealing with a complex system.
Here is a nice note on the matter, by Chris Collinson:
We know more than we can ever tell,
we tell more than we can ever write down,
and we write down more than we ever act upon.
And all of us who don’t only live in a fantasy world know that it’s action that counts.
The first two rows are borrowed, from Polanyi and Snowden, the third is Collinson’s own.
Hey – that’s me!
Harold Jarche is one of my primary sieves when it comes to capture useful viewpoints expressed somewhere on the (anglophone) web. And then he usually adds value to these by commenting on them.
Yesterday he pointed to a list by Neal Gorenflo that contains the main attributes of a knowledge worker. It was almost scary to read – I recognize myself in every aspect.
- Knowledge workers understand information as currency. Sharing is a core strategy for success even in a corporate context. This can bring knowledge workers to the commons.
- Their worldview is informed by systems thinking or is polyglot. It’s not informed by a single political ideology.
- They understand that influence depends on the ability to persuade, and that choice of language is important. They will not use political language that has been marginalized. They’re all in this sense salespeople.
- Knowledge workers can become moderate radicals, meaning they believe that fundamental change is needed but are politically a mixed bag, they borrow ideas from left and right, from religion, from science. And they have friends and relatives on both side of the political spectrum.
- They do not have stable identities or their identities are not wrapped up in a single belief system. They are always wondering who they are. This is a source of angst. But what they lack in identity, they make up for in opportunity. They have options.
And in Swedish I would like to call a knowledge worker ”kunskapare”.
Change11 and 7 primitives of scholarship
I participate (or rather lurk at this stage) in Change11, a MOOC (Massive Online Open Course) organized by the eminent canadiens George Siemens, Stephen Downes and Dave Cormier. I also participated in the first MOOC ever, CCK08, together with 2000+ other people. Quite an experience. This course will continue for 36 weeks (!) and each week is hosted by a different person. This week it’s Martin Weller, who bases his input on a book he just has published, ”The Digital Scholar”. The book is available for free on the internet, and while browsing around I found this useful checklist:
Before we consider definitions of digital scholarship, we should look at concepts of scholarship which they build upon. Unsworth (2000) suggested seven ‘scholarly primitives’. His work was focused around humanities, but he argues that
Primitives refer to some basic functions common to scholarly activity across disciplines, over time, and independent of theoretical orientation … These primitives are the irreducible currency of scholarship, so it should, in principal, be possible to exchange them across all manner of boundaries of type or token. (Unsworth 2000)
His list of primitives is as follows:
- discovering – knowledge either through archives or research;
- annotating – adding layers of interpretation;
- comparing – for example, texts across languages, data sets;
- referring – referencing and acknowledging;
- sampling – selecting appropriate samples;
- illustrating – clarifying, elucidating, explaining; and
- representing – publishing or communicating.
A good and practical list. I wonder if there would need to be any changes if you would be describing non-academic knowledge production? It would work as a checklist for journalist too, it seems.
Look, the Emperor has no clothes!
Wonderful hypothetical conversation between an employer and a prospective employee putting late 20th century working life into perspective.
On thinking
A good quote from Cognitive Edge’s guest blog:
Thinking that sees its function as making conscious lived experience adds genuine value. It does so by introducing useful distinctions into the undifferentiated mass of experience, thereby giving us influence over what we do. On a second level, thinking allows us to test our distinctions against reality with experiments, which produce second order experience and provide additional food for further refinement through reflection in a trial and error process of conscious evolution.
- Information wants to be free
- On Learning Styles
- Almost flying
- Valued, not measured
- Why I didn’t finish my PhD studies
- Thinking of quitting FaceBook
- Ut med Sansa Express, in med Zoom H2
- Idédräparmanual
- Kunskaparna.net
- Grou.ps
-
Romi: Yeah, I guess one should follow privacy tips like ...
-
Sean Vernall: I too like the idea that everything can be in one ...
-
-
-
Linda: I don't like the durable of all those lists he's...
