Noise > Signal Polyani

According to Polanyi's analysis of scientific progress, discovery is rooted in the scientist's personal awareness of coherence among what have previously been seen as unrelated events. It is the scientist's deeply held belief of being in personal contact with a yet unknown but potentially real entity which drives scientific discovery, and there is no way to anticipate the evidence which will eventually justify and support a new idea.

Polanyi, M. (1958). Personal knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Education & Technology - Randomness & Values (Chomsky)

 Research Institutions: Post Grad

Science progresses by the need  to question authority and doctrine, search for alternatives, use imagination
, act freely, cooperative work with others...

New Technology:  changes are significant but others were more communication,  - c.f. random?

Technology is neutral - like a hammer
If you have a framework --conception of what matters (Needs to be adapted changed)
- a clear framework directing research what put aside what used what challenged -
  internet can be a useful tool

well directed conceptual apparatus required (that is criticized revised regularly) (i.e. iterative)
Knew what to look for what is significant but also question if framework is right (KeyWords)


 - random searches without a framework can lead to  cults..?* due to cherry picking knowledge and connections




Measure by economic growth - ? free creative independent individuals = people who increase GDP?

Bertrand Russel John Dewey> better human beings

Public Sector

Lively educational/cultural system geared towards creative exploration
Independence of thought, crossing segments/boundaries , challenge beliefs > new technologies...

Exams can be useful for individual and instructors as a learning tool,
Test results not that important... can if contributes to purpose of education

System is geared to pass hurdles - like horse race...
Searching Enquiring - exploring pursue topics that engage excite us...

Doesn't matter what we cover it matters what you discover,inspiring stundents to discover on their own, challenge if don't agree, look for alternatives if they think better, work through great achievement of past

get to point where learn on own



http://blip.tv/learning-without-frontiers/noam-chomsky-the-purpose-of-education-5925460


*Contrasts with postmodern view of tech as biased to instrumentality and imposing specific 'gaze' (Foucault) /   (--re hegemony ?) Whereby 'science' is considered  just another cult with no more validity in terms of "truth"... (and possibly equally  as 'dangerous' due to fixing subject positions and dualism/ exclusion  ignoring Hume etc...)


Do I agree... currently I see the collective value of science to move towards a consensus on method...Process (i.e. peace ?and understanding?)
Re fixed truth - not sure - science must try to be clear about its limitations (Popper) and hidden assumptions re induction/gaze/instrumentality... and its contribution to alienation and danger of conflict


Is the drive to disprove always the best, (Popper(Falsification)) not always as some experiences may depend on belief and leaving them open may be better and safer than closing them to a collective  materialist/insrtumentalist driven model ...


Whence Inclusive Listening* /Awareness (c.f.."Randomness"/"Noise")?
The domain seems to me both  difficult and of great promise,  fertile yet open to misunderstanding and prejudice, in terms of Habermas: communicative competence/discourse in this area, clear research and social discussion is very important


aside:
Language issues have not been resolved... (Typing, although Deleuze, Guatarri and Massumi get close to addressing this() the social sciences are always open to theoretical sabotage by the right...
It is harder to hide/distort valuable theory in the management theory realm as many corporations must be socially effective within its boundaries to achieve its optimum in the long term... the corporations may well use those same effective theories or adapt them  to collectively act against social progress at other levels  
The appropriation of GST and Hyeck etc and consequence move against GST in the social sciences  could be an example...

Popper (1959) "The logic of Scientific Discovery"

Kuhn: Science Paradigm

Kuhn turns attention from the “product” of science to the “process” 

of science. 

He seems to denythat 

(1) Rationality is the drivingforce behind scientific change. 

(2) New theories represent “the world” more accurately than old theories do.

Normal vs. revolutionaryscience 

Kuhn says there are two kinds of science: 

Normalscience is “researchfirmlybasedupon one or more 

scientific achievements, achievements that 

some particular scientific community 

acknowledges for a time as supplying 

the foundation for its future practice” (10). 

Revolutionaryscience occurs when normal science breaks down, 

because the exemplaryachievements of the 

past no longer give enoughguidance 

about what should happen next. 

Normal science andparadigms

A paradigm that is successful (for a time) has “attract[ed] an 

enduringgroupof adherents awayfrom competingmodes of 

scientific activity” and is “sufficientlyopen­ended to leave all sorts 

of problems for the . . . groupofpractitioners to solve” (10). 

Anomalies 

Anomalies are ways that “nature has somehow violated the 

paradigm­inducedexpectations that govern normal science” (53). 

Phlogiston theorysays burning“liberates” phlogiston that had 

been bonded with“ash.” But then whydo some things gain 

weight when burned? 

Roentgen’s discoveryof X­rays: “Though X­rays were not 

prohibited byestablishedtheory, they violated deeply 

entrenched expectations. . . Perhaps those rays . . . were 

implicatedin behavior previouslyexplained without reference 

to them” (59). 

Crisis

“[E]arlyattacks upon the resistant problem willhave followedthe 

paradigm rules quite closely. But withcontinuingresistance, more 

andmore of the attacks upon it will have involved some minor or 

not so minor articulations ofthe paradigm, no two ofthem quite 

alike, each partiallysuccessful, but none sufficientlyso to be 

acceptedas paradigm bythe group” (83). 

Example: competingsystems of epicycles. 

The breakdown ofa paradigm

“Through this proliferation of divergent articulations (more and 

more they willcome to be described as adhoc adjustments), the 

rules of normal science become increasinglyblurred. Thoughthere 

is still a paradigm, few practitioners prove to be entirelyagreed 

about what it is. Even formerlystandardsolutions of solved 

problems are calledin question” (83). 

Revolution

“The resultingtransition to a new paradigm is scientific revolution” 

(90), suchas the transition to special relativityin the earlypart of 

the twentiethcentury. 

The crisis is “terminated, not bydeliberation and interpretation, but 

bya relativelysudden and unstructured event like the gestalt switch 

[e.g., the change from seeingan illustration as a rabbit to seeingit as 

a duck]. Scientists then often speak ofthe ‘scales fallingfrom the 

eyes’ or ofthe ‘lightningflash’ that ‘inundates’ a previouslyobscure 

puzzle, enablingits components to be seen in a new waythat for the 

first time permits its solution” (122). 

Kuhn’s descriptive picture, in a nutshell

Normal science consists of solvingpuzzles that the dominant 

paradigm guarantees have answers, until an anomalyis discovered. 

Certain anomalies cause a crisis. Generally, crises bringabout the 

development and adoption ofa new paradigm. 

Note: this is all technical vocabulary—and the interpretation of 

much ofit is controversial! 

MIT lecture notes Reason Relativity and Reality

Lecture Review and Comments: Positivism

Session 2

Positivism

Auguste Comte

utilitarianism

liberalism

deduction

hypotheses

induction

methodological individualism

epiphenomenal

environment-behaviour research

cognitive maps

environmental perception

spatial cognition

legibility

monograph

mimesis

Session2

Key Ideas of the Enlightenment

Individualism - The individual is the starting point for all knowledge and action, and individual reason cannot be subjected to a higher authority (such as God or the Church).

Rationalism - Reason, or the process of rational thought, independent of experience, is innate within the human mind and is the only basis for organizing knowledge.

Empiricism - The only valid way to gain knowledge about the world is through observation or sensory experience.

Scientific Method - Science allows us to order observable facts and to discover the laws that govern them.

Progress - Knowledge gained by scientific methods can be used to explain or predict events, resulting in the improvement of the human condition.

Universalism - Scientific methods for acquiring objective knowledge are universal so they can be applied to all spheres of endeavour.

Session 2

                                      Types of Theory Work

1) Ad hoc classificatory systems are arbitrary classes constructed for the sake of summarizing data.

They are methods of organizing observations so that more sophisticated theory development can follow.

2) Categorical systems or taxonomies construct classes to fit the subject matter and facilitate the description of relationships among classes of phenomena.

Taxonomies do not offer an explanation; they merely provide descriptive schemes that anticipate explanatory and predictive theories.

3) Conceptual frameworks place descriptive categories within a broad structure of propositions, which are used to analyze the data.

Conceptual frameworks are based on concepts, the first building blocks of theory.

They systematically direct empirical and theoretical activity around a core set of problems.

4) Theoretical systems combine taxonomies and conceptual schemes with descriptions and predictions in a deductive relationship, but they lack an empirical base.

5) Empirical theoretical systems are fully developed positivist theories consisting of concepts, definitions, hypotheses or propositions and empirical observations. 

Session 2

The Main Characteristics of Positivism

1) Positivism is based on phenomenalism, which assumes that every phenomenon in the world has an independent existence, or "essence", which remains constant and can be observed.

2) Positivism assumes that every phenomenon is governed by laws that a detached investigator using appropriate methods may discover.

3) The knowledge discovered using these methods is believed to be objective and factual.

4) Positivism claims that once knowledge is gained it can be used to explain events, make predictions about future events, and control phenomena in ways that will be advantageous to the controllers.

5) Positivist research is organized around the principles of verifiability or falsifiability.

6) Positivism makes a very rigid distinction between fact and value and portrays itself as neutral, objective or value-free.

7) The positivist or scientific method aims to build theories by incorporating different levels of theory-work.

8) Positivists believe in the essential unity of the scientific method, that the methods for acquiring knowledge are the same in all spheres of experience.

Scientific Method - + and -

+ Explicit Assumptions - Hypothesis driven - Precision?
- Complex Systems, Reductionism, Induction? (Hume etc)