For educators, the Dynabook could be a new world limitedonly by their imagination and ingenuity. They could use it toshow complex historical inter-relationships in ways notpossible with static linear books. Mathematics could becomea living language in which children could cause excitingthings to happen. Laboratory experiments and simulationstoo expensive or difficult to prepare could easily bedemonstrated. The production of stylish prose and poetrycould be greatly aided by being able to easily edit and fileone’s own compositions.
Knowledge is power and so it tends to behoarded. Experts in any field rarely wantpeople to understand what they do, andgenerally enjoy putting people down.Thus if we say that the use of computersis dominated by a priesthood, people whospatter you with unintelligible answers andseem unwilling to give you straight ones, itis not that they are different in this respectfrom any other profession.
This totally doesn’t relate to me or my nugget, but I am amused by this all the same. Contrary to my previous paragraph about how interesting I found it to diverge from one source, the next two blogs I read were basically the exact same posts! So I can now make the exact opposite post! Jeremy Watts and JawadBlog chose the exact same nugget, discussed it in similar terms, but have fairly dissimilar research topics. One is looking into technology and human consciousness, and the other about how social media has affected music, yet they both brought up similar points about the nugget in connection to their own topics. Does anyone else find this interesting? Because I find this fascinating.
It appears to me that a lot of people are taking the same approach to this this assignment — pick one of your favorite well known websites — and asking similar questions regarding this website — Why do people like it? Are we getting addicted? Is it making us stupider/sadder?
I find this terribly interesting because it seems like people almost want to sabotage their relationship with said favorite website. Is this Neo breaking out of his cocoon and seeing the Matrix for what it really is? I am very curious to know what inspired all of these questions, and even more curious to find out if the answers will alter their use in the researcher’s lives.
For instance, in Blues Cruise the author questions the reason behind Facebook’s popularity, as well as its ongoing presence in our lives. I will be interested to see the research on this as well as what the author concludes. As for how this relates to my project, I suppose I am more focused on the opening portion of the post about the barking cats. Well not those cats in particular, but the benefit of internet distractions.
I am really intrigued by Imelda Jurasova’s entire blog and way of interacting with the nuggets. Imelda is able to link back research from Diigo to last week’s nugget in a small but insightful way, and is able to connect this research even further by describing it like a mosaic. While our research topics are quite different I enjoy the methodical layout and clear direction in which it is going.
Author of the blog Elisey views Diigo as a sort of road map to research and compares this adventure to a hike in Belle Isle. As a huge fan of exploration and Belle Isle, I appreciate this analogy if only because it warms me to the idea of the research. I will try and use Diigo more as the author suggests, by following trails made by other people and not just trying to hack my own.
In general, it seems that other people are finding much more use in camaraderie in Diigo than I have so far and I am determined to change this for myself. I would like to be able to, for lack of a better term, piggy back off of other research and see in what directions other people are heading. If only for the sake of my curiosity, since my whole project is inspired by curiosity. Unfortunately unfiltered curiosity and academic pursuits don’t seem to have as much presence together on the web as I would have thought. In order to better apply my own research to others I am going to explore the tags other students are using and try to be more consistent with them so we can more easily share.
to tie this back into my nugget, I am focusing on the idea that we are all born with a set of tools to deal with the world. We are all born with an innate curiosity that can manifest in many ways. Although the world around us changes and feels unpredictable we are able to adapt and make those changes beneficial to us because of this strong mix of curiosity and…maybe selfishness? Or just self preservation or satisfaction? We just want to better our lives and will work to do that, which is why technology is constantly being improved.
The individual does not use this information and this processing to grapple directly with the sort of complex situation in which we seek to give him help. He uses his innate capabilities in a rather more indirect fashion, since the situation is generally too complex to yield directly to his motor actions, and always too complex to yield comprehensions and solutions from direct sensory inspection and use of basic cognitive capabilities. For instance, an aborigine who possesses all of our basic sensory-mental-motor capabilities, but does not possess our background of indirect knowledge and procedure, cannot organize the proper direct actions necessary to drive a car through traffic, request a book from the library, call a committee meeting to discuss a tentative plan, call someone on the telephone, or compose a letter on the typewriter.” –Douglas C. Engelbart
So my first thought when reading this was the question “is man born into technology?”, which I quickly googled, expecting nothing. What’d I get? Nearly nothing. But I did find this quote which I will post before deciding if it is pertinent.
No man is born into the world whose work is not born with him. There is always work, and tools to work with, for those who will, and blessed are the horny hands of toil. The busy world shoves angrily aside the man who stands with arms akimbo until occasion tells him what to do; and he who waits to have his task marked out shall die and leave his errand unfulfilled.
— James Russell Lowell
“The applications of science have built man a well-supplied house, and are teaching him to live healthily therein. They have enabled him to throw masses of people against one another with cruel weapons. They may yet allow him truly to encompass the great record and to grow in the wisdom of race experience. He may perish in conflict before he learns to wield that record for his true good. Yet, in the application of science to the needs and desires of man, it would seem to be a singularly unfortunate stage at which to terminate the process, or to lose hope as to the outcome” — Vannevar Bush
I am going to try to keep my response and analysis specifically focused on this paragraph, because my thoughts seemed to get terribly muddled in the grand scheme of the article. It is the first sentence that struck me in Bush’s closing paragraph, particularly “The applications of science have built man a well-supplied house.” I don’t think science has done anything of the sort. Science is a tool that man uses, so any house that has been built for man has been built by man. The thought that kept popping up while I read this article was that I feel that man creates the science as it is needed. The reason the pharaoh wasn’t building cars around Egypt wasn’t because it wasn’t economically efficient, it’s because no one’s brain was focused on solving that problem because that problem didn’t exist. New technology brings new problems, which brings on even more new technology. Because of this I don’t think we will ever stop creating, our science won’t perish. If only because we keep creating new expectations and with those expectations, new problems. From that we will always innovate.
Radiolab discusses the inevitability of innovation: http://www.radiolab.org/story/101024-idea-time-come/
Question – “What are you seeing as the difference between science, technology, and inventions? Are they the same?”
Answer – “I think that they are different definition-wise (or else they wouldn’t have their own words!) but are very strongly intertwined. I feel that science is sort of a standing fact, independent of human beings. The science exists whether we understand it or not. For instance, quarks were always quarks before we even realized it. Science is just the amazing explanation for what is and why. I think technology, on the other hand, is a concept completely dependent on humans. Inventions as well. Those are humans interacting with science and the world and building from it. “