Philosophical notes…
On Socratic Sandwiches
“What kinds of acts are made possible when we believe we know the objective truth? In what ways are our social practices, personal relationships, moral judgments, foreign policies, and political beliefs based on foundations of ‘knowledge’ that, when pressed, we can’t even satisfactorily define or demonstrate? What implications does this have, for how we see the world and our place in it, for how we relate to one another, for how we move through space and time? And why, actually, IS this kind of debate so frustrating? Why is critical thinking experienced as uncomfortable? Why, for example, did the Athenian senate vote to have Socrates LITERALLY KILLED for engaging people in debates like the sandwich debate? What were the charges they actually brought against him? They said he ‘turns the worse argument into the stronger’ and that he ‘teaches these things to the young.’ Socrates’ annoying arguments about definitions were felt to be such a threat to the existing power structure of ancient Athens that even some of his supporters’ attempts to get his sentence changed to lifetime exile were unconvincing, and he was democratically voted into death.”
"Is This a Sandwich?" Medium - http://bit.ly/1itdIZQ
On Human Technology
“JEFFREY BROWN: Thinking about what robots do or don’t do, or can or cannot do means to think about what it is to be human. Right?
JOHN MARKOFF: Yes.
JEFFREY BROWN: What is it that only humans can do?
JOHN MARKOFF: Well, I have been asked that question. What is it to be human? And I think the nature of humanity is found between the interaction that you and I have. And it’s actually something that makes me slightly hopeful, because even though we’re being surrounded with all this automation technology, there is the possibility that that interaction between you and I might actually become more valuable. And, you know, it might work out that way. That would be great.”
"Why Humanity is Essential to the Future of Artificial Intelligence," - http://to.pbs.org/1itcPjV. Interesting interview with the author of Machines of Loving Grace.
On Vanity
“RICHARD DAWKINS: They’re vulnerable. I also would like them to know the Bible for literary reasons.
CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS: Precisely. We both, I was pleased to see, have written pieces about the King James Bible. The AV [Authorised Version], as it was called in my boyhood. A huge amount of English literature would be opaque if people didn’t know it.
RD: Absolutely, yes. Have you read some of the modern translations? ‘Futile, said the preacher. Utterly futile.’
CH: He doesn’t!
RD: He does, honestly. ‘Futile, futile said the priest. It’s all futile.’
CH: That’s Lamentations.
RD: No, it’s Ecclesiastes. ‘Vanity, vanity.’
CH: ‘Vanity, vanity.’ Good God. That’s the least religious book in the Bible. That’s the one that Orwell wanted at his funeral.”
"'Never Be Afraid of Stridency': Richard Dawkins' Interview with Christopher Hitchens," - http://www.newstatesman.com/node/200931
On New Romanticism
“Just once I’d like to have a college student come up to me and say, ‘I really wanted to major in accounting, but my parents forced me to major in medieval art.’ That probably won’t happen... But you see a counterreaction setting in. You see, here and there, signs of a new romanticism... I’m not sure we’re about to be overrun with waves of Byronic romantics, but we have been living through an unromantic period and there’s bound to be a correction. People eventually want their souls stirred, especially if the stuff regarded as soft and squishy turns out in a relational economy to be hard and practical.”
David Brooks, "The New Romantics in the Computer Age" - http://nyti.ms/1hGhL4e
On Coddling and Critical Thinking
“There’s a saying common in education circles: Don’t teach students what to think; teach them how to think. The idea goes back at least as far as Socrates. Today, what we call the Socratic method is a way of teaching that fosters critical thinking, in part by encouraging students to question their own unexamined beliefs, as well as the received wisdom of those around them. Such questioning sometimes leads to discomfort, and even to anger, on the way to understanding.”
"The Coddling of the American Mind," - http://theatln.tc/1IXIRdd
Watson Goes to University
“Deakin University will be the first university in the world to utilise IBM Watson to enhance the quality of the student experience, developing with IBM a breakthrough system that will transform the way students get advice and answers to questions... Watson will answer questions about courses but will also be able to help guide students through the maze of decision-making about their future careers to enhance their employment opportunities. Over time every student who asks Watson a question can expect tailored information and personalised advice and information based on their individual profile.”
IBM's website suggests that this will be "a new partnership that aims to exceed students’ needs." It's at the early stages of development, but if successful, that may well be an understatement.
On Software
“Every aspect of the global industrial social order is being transformed by the impact of software. This has happened before of course: money and written language both transformed the world in similarly profound ways. Software, however, is more flexible and powerful than either.”
"A New Software Technology," - http://breakingsmart.com/season-1/a-new-soft-technology/
On Citation Metrics
“We started out our story with our professors in Science out-performing our professors in the Social Sciences and Humanities to a staggering extent, by having 17 times as many ISI citations. At the end of our story, we find that when using the most comprehensive data source and correcting for the number of co-authors and the length of the academic’s publishing career, academics in the Social Sciences and Humanities on average out-perform academics in the Sciences.”
Anne-Wil Harzing, "Citation Analysis across Disciplines: The Impact of Different Data Sources and Citation Metrics" - http://www.harzing.com/data_metrics_comparison.htm. An interesting white paper summary of different citation metrics, with some justification to rethink how humanities research is assessed.
When Algorithms Discriminate
“There is a widespread belief that software and algorithms that rely on data are objective. But software is not free of human influence. Algorithms are written and maintained by people, and machine learning algorithms adjust what they do based on people’s behavior. As a result, say researchers in computer science, ethics and law, algorithms can reinforce human prejudices. Google’s online advertising system, for instance, showed an ad for high-income jobs to men much more often than it showed the ad to women, a new study by Carnegie Mellon University researchers found.”
"When Algorithms Discriminate," - http://nyti.ms/1JX8Wwv.
On Learning to Think
“Knowing how to think demands a set of cognitive skills — quantitative ability, conceptual flexibility, analytical acumen, expressive clarity. But beyond those skills, learning how to think requires the development of a set of intellectual virtues that make good students, good professionals, and good citizens. I use the word ‘virtues,’ as opposed to ‘skills,’ deliberately. As Aristotle knew, all of the traits I will discuss have a fundamental moral dimension. I won’t provide an exhaustive list of intellectual virtues, but I will provide a list, just to get the conversation started... love of truth... honesty... fair-mindedness... humility... perseverance... good listening... perspective taking and empathy... wisdom.”
Barry Schwartz, "What 'Learning How to Think' Really Means," The Chronicle of Higher Education - http://bit.ly/1G8lfkk. Schwartz elaborates on each skill and maybe one of the more interesting is his summary of why love of truth is first on his list.
“Love of truth is an intellectual virtue because its absence has serious moral consequences. Relativism chips away at our fundamental respect for one another as human beings. When people have respect for the truth, they seek it out and speak it in dialogue. Once truth becomes suspect, debates become little more than efforts at manipulation. Instead of trying to enlighten or persuade people by giving them reasons to see things as we do, we can use any form of influence we think will work. This is what political ‘spin’ is all about.”