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"

Manufacturing Consent

Manufacturing consent

Chomsky Herman

Myths and "Facts" : Norris, Chomsky, Foucault

Norris writes:

[T]here is a measure of agreement between Foucault's and Chomsky's positions. . . .Thus Chomsky goes some way toward conceding the point that our ideas of truth are very largely the product of "internalized preconceptions" ; that subjects may indeed be conditioned to accept certain facts as "self-evident" merely by virtue of their fitting in with some established, consensual, or professionalized code of belief; that censorship often operates not so much "from above" as through forms of self-imposed discipline and restraint that don't involve the exercise of overt, coercive powers; that there may be "honest," "right-thinking" individuals (as Chomsky is willing to describe them) who are none the less involved in propagating falsehoods that service the "political economy of truth" ; and moreover, that resistance to those falsehoods or abuses of power must always be to some extent reliant on the "discourses" ­ the available sources of information ­ that circulate at any given time. (113­ 14)

While emphasizing, again, the trivial and self-interested character of most political-science theory, Chomsky mentions Foucault's contribution to historical studies:

One can learn a lot from history, as from life, as long as it avoids the pretentious tomfoolery required by intellectuals for career and power reasons. Take Foucault, whom you mention. With enough effort, one can extract from his writings some interesting insights and observations, peeling away the framework of obfuscation that is required for respectability in the strange world of intellectuals, which takes on extreme forms in the weird culture of postwar Paris. Foucault is unusual among Paris intellectuals in that at least something is left when one peels this away. (15 Dec. 1992)

The intellectual a commisarr

http://cognet.mit.edu/library/books/chomsky/chomsky/5/8.html