Unit II: Proof – Argument – Literacy
Project 2: Rhetorical Analysis Webtext
- warm-up exercise:
- Rhetorical Analysis exercise due Sat 10-Oct
Week 8
M 10/12 Discuss: Vaidhyanathan (2011): “The Googlization of Knowledge: The Future of Books” (149−73) PDF (in D2L)
- Focus: developing Project 2 Webtext (collaborative publication: information & argument)
- watch video: BrainCraft — “What is a Fact?” PBS Digital Studios (2015)
W 10/14 hybrid work :
- read & discuss: chapter from Day (2001), The Modern Invention of Information (pp. 7–36) PDF in D2L
- Discussion Prompts here
- First comment: 2-part post.
- Classmate reply: brief response, thoughtful comment or question.
→ All week: continue developing ideas for project, notes & examples for each issue/category…
-
specialized discourse of your field/discipline in “Information Paradigm” —
Information, Knowledge, Expertise, Research, Argument, Evidence/Proof,
Discourse communities, and communication conventions (rhetorical/written).
F 10/16 attend Conference on Community Writing
- Write optional blog for extra credit (200 words, informal)
→ discuss one presentation, considering/addressing any topics from project/unit and focus this week: especially discourse communities and institutions (“information ecologies”?); types of knowledge, information circulation/spread; roles & discourse academic, public, professional/business, communal/social, hybrid
» Wed 10/14 Discussion Prompts:
1. Post a brief quote/passage from Day (intriguing, thought-provoking, puzzling, relevant).
2. Briefly note how this helps your understanding, perspective, or articulating a key issue of project — perhaps a new/expanded topic (e.g. the type/s of information, how it is used, how respective to discipline)
→ perhaps reference (update?) your “Field Sketch” or the “information ecology” of scholarly discourse (Monday’s class).
→ potentially helpful approaches include:
the “ecological perspective; “evidence/proof” (type of argument/mode); omissions/exclusions (J.Jung) or “knowledge gaps” (Vaidhyanathan) in discipline.
*suggestion: also good to reference Day’s chapter in your reply, either quote/passage you included (connect? contrast?) or a different one.
Also, do not think you need to offer answer/explanation for classmate — just help them (re-)consider the disciplinary specificity, with brief comment or question. (so, this is a thoughtful response that should extend the inquiry, both for them as well as for yourself, and maybe the discussion itself…)
» reminder, reference explicitly any key issues/topics of the project (particularly using Day chapter):
in specialized discourse of your field/discipline—
Information, Knowledge, Expertise, Research, Argument, Evidence/Proof,
Discourse communities, and communication conventions (rhetorical/written).
“Such a device would provide each person with a true and complete picture of all knowledge in a manner that would be most true for each person, thus eliminating conflicts over differing interpretations and providing the grounds for ‘true’ conversation (20).”
This device that Day speaks of is something that would have infinite storage, retrieval, and communication abilities for all persons. While I find this idea very interesting I still find it flawed in the idea of perfect knowledge. One may be able to retrieve and store all information but there is still an aspect of interpretation that isn’t fully considered. In the field of Sociology, all “truth” is just a scientific interpretation of a groups general actions with outliers and exceptions. There could not be absolute truth of information and knowledge is simply the understanding that social phenomena can be a reality but no absolute proven truth is attainable. Interpretation of data is a huge portion of the knowledge seen in the field of sociology but one must be a critical thinker of said knowledge in order to obtain and create their own knowledge.
I agree! I think the ideal of perfect knowledge will vary from field to field. I think it’s really interesting when you mentioned how sociologists need to think critically in order to to obtain and create their own knowledge! When you think about it, that’s really what every profession is doing! In order to come up with new and critical ideas, ideas must be brought to light! It’s interesting how ideas take place and shape in different fields.
I really like this quote, especially its statement on conflicts due to differing interpretations. So many conflicts occur internationally, domestically, and among personal relationships due to differing interpretations of knowledge. If everyone is on the same page with how something is truly meant to be interpreted, conversations would be a lot more effective.
…so we haven’t solved the problem of “knowledge” with everyone’s being “able to retrieve and store all information,” in Allison’s terms?
(Good points here, post + 2 replies!)
” Briet may not have been a semiotician or used the term “semiotics” itself, but she was a librarian influenced by the philosophers and linguistics of her day, and every librarian knows the importance of the indexical relations of signs to one another in the placement and definition of bibliographic documents” (p.18)
This passage is really interesting to me because it conveys what is considered knowledge from a librarian’s educational field. This helps me when thinking about my own project and the type of knowledge used in the education field because it is really helpful how they give specific examples of types of knowledge. I think a lot of times because it might seem so basic to you, you forget that others might not have access to your particular educational lingo. For example, I have no clue about semiotics but am not able to better understand the context.
Highlighting the type of knowledge is an essential aspect of this project and this passage and article has made me realize that I may need to shrink my topic a little bit. I am focusing on the education system, primarily elementary education and how information gets relayed in this field. I am hoping to focus primarily on knowledge based materials surrounding cultural education and how esteemed educators view teaching ethics and standards for teaching culturally diverse students. I will definitely need to use specific examples and ideas and expand onto how those ideas came to be and why they are respected in the field.
Your observation that knowledge is different in your field versus someone else’s and that people outside your field may not have access to definitions of certain terms or jargon are very relevant to this project! It is good that you have acknowledged that your discipline is situated differently than others, and so may need to be narrowed a bit. Our discussion on Monday about how information was retrieved, how it was affected by its context may be helpful for you to narrow your focus and get examples of what cultural education materials look like.
“Evidence, though, can be thought about and different ways. Most commonly, evidence is taken in a positivist sense of being an object or event that is proof for the existence of some factual question.”
This piece that helped me, sort of complements what you are saying about knowledge. If you think about knowledge, you usually have some way to back it up. You do this with information. How do you back up information? Evidence!
’In order to have different types of knowledge you must have different types of evidence, not only across different fields, but within you down field.
Thoughtful and beneficial reminders here about context and language, how discipline/field sets & maintains its parameters/perimeters (?) by specialized discourse in its Info Ecology…
“The of the conservation of energy: never lost, never created, all in transformation. In the book also: books conserve mental energy, what is contained in books passes to together books when they themselves have been destroyed; and all biological creation not matter hoe original and how powerful, implies redistribution, combination and new amalgamations from what is previously given.” (pg 15)
I find this passage to be interesting and true. The information in books is often passed down through generations, retold in different ways where parts are eventually forgotten or morphed into new meaning. I think it is interesting they used the analogy about energy not being created or destroyed, because I never thought of books in that way, but it is true. This could be potentially helpful to think about when doing our projects because information is often skewed and changed throughout time, same as energy.
How is information skewed and changed in your field?
I like this quote as well. It demonstrates that knowledge can continue to change. In my field of sociology, knowledge is redistribution and changed after each new study is finished and previous information is disproved. How does knowledge change through time when we are so set on believing certain facts are everlasting and unchanging?
The quote you found is quite relevant to disciplines like literature, sociology, history etc that use documented writing to prove a point. This writing can change throughout time and past documents may be forgotten. For hard disciplines, mainly math and science, which use proofs and theory that build on one another, it can be hard to rework past knowledge if it is already “Set in stone”.
I still believe that it can relate to my field in chemistry because science is not always “set in stone”, especially in the past. New concepts and theories are always being found and tested. People use the knowledge found in certain books, or sources of informations and they expand upon it.
I find to be interesting the pace at which knowledge changes depending on the field. For example, knowledge in mathematics changes at a slower rate than knowledge in a field like yours.
I read that part and did not pick up on that at all. I am so much more used to a scientific black and white style of writing. For this reason much of the content in this class flies right over my head.
I found this quote helpful, for my field as well. Knowledge in law is constantly changing through time; even though the initial information is based on laws from the past, new knowledge is required in order to keep up with and guard the social changes of society. I like how you elaborated on the example of energy; I agree with you, I never thought about books in that context.
“And as an intellectual instrument, the book serves not only to state theories, but to construct them; not only to translate thought, but to form it” (p 19).
This concept was very interesting to me. It applies to information, especially within the field of Neuroscience in that once facts are experimentally proven, they serve as a springboard to launch other scientists into discovery. Sometimes this leads to such radical experimentation that once sturdy paradigms are toppled and replaced by new ideas. This constant proving or disproving of individual facts makes information (especially in a field as new as neuroscience) somewhat more malleable than some other definitions had made it appear.
This is a great quote. The idea of a book as documentation has a very permanent status tied to it. But, you point out that neuroscience is an ever changing collection of truths and cutting edge knowledge. How would you (or can you) present evidence or knowledge in the field of neuroscience that would be considered a permanent truth? It seems like the constant proving and disproving might work to destabilize what is considered knowledge in your field. That’s not necessarily a bad thing…but it is certainly an interesting concept.
This is a great starting point, but have you considered the conventions by which people form and construct theories in other fields? How do they differ from yours? Do their methods influence your field at all?
The best thing about this quote is that it applies to every field, because to have a discipline evolve and become better it has to be constantly improving and changing for the better.
I really like this quote. I also chose a quote on the importance of books, and I think this is really relevant in social science based disciplines. There are an incredible amount of theories out there, and for a book to be able to construct it and also form a specific thought is extremely powerful. The ability to take something abstract and putting it into words is difficult but important to gaining an understanding.
→ question for each of us (each discipline), about “experimentation” for knowledge: process of discovery or invention?
(both? when?)
Very thought-provoking and considered points, in posts/replies here!
“a document, or, equally, and evidential fact is such inasmuch as it is defined within an institutional and linguistic network of production…and is characterized by indexical relationships” (24).
In this quote, Day is referring to Briet’s argument about documentation and evidence. It really speaks to what we have been going over in class: that evidence and knowledge is respective to its particular discourse community. For example, in my field, literature studies, there are specific rhetorical devices and rules for how you lay out an argument, and when evidence is presented following conventional modes of production, it is accepted as factual and true. I think Briet and Day are pointing out that what counts for knowledge in one field, does not necessarily count for knowledge in another field. Also, the indexical relationships speak to how information is presented via topics and sub-topics that are already accepted to be knowledge in a particular institution.
This is exactly what I am having trouble with. My field overlaps into a few different discourse communities and it is difficult to find sources that only target one. So I have tried to narrow down the styles of evidence rather than the sources where you can find evidence.
This is very interesting, because it is true that fact or evidence for one field is not necessarily valid in another field. Another interesting point is that when you narrow your field into a single discourse there can even be discrepancies there in regards to knowledge and fact. For example my field is business, and my discipline is leadership in business, and this is difficult to find common knowledge on because leadership is such a subjective thing.
Great quote and context/extension, Alita.
Key reminder, “network of production” being what I tried explaining in “Information Ecology” perspective Monday…
→ idea for each of us, examine how / to what extent discipline privileges (or form some, fetishizes) the document (indexical fact) but not the network of production…?
“Two important events are immediately evident in Briet’s text. First is that Briet chooses to talk about documents by beginning with a live animal instead of a paper text. If a live animal is a document, then non-paper materials such as films, statues, paintings, and the like must have a documentary status as well.”
This helped me start thinking about how I might be limiting my search for proper documentation. I have been looking for information that has been published to journals, supported or disproven, and written in books, but this may not always be true. In the field of audiology, we deal with individual people. Individuals can sometimes fall into categories follow certain procedures that we prescribe to all patients or clients of audiology, but not all individuals do. They are their own resource for information. Sometimes the only way to treat a certain patient is to study that individual, not treat them in a general way.
“The second important events in Briet’s first few paragraphs of quest kill a document that she is that she defines documents by their status as evidence. Evidence, though, can be thought about and different ways. Most commonly, evidence is taken in a positivist sense of being an object or event that is proof for the existence of some factual question. Briet however, subverts this tendency by appealing to philosophical and linguistic approaches to the problem of evidence, suggesting, in the context of her time, that what seems to be a more semiotic approach is appropriate for thinking about documents as evidence.”
The following piece also helped me with this concept. Evidence doesn’t necessarily have to come from documented data, if you can see the subject, touch the subject, and think about the subject in front of you, must you physically “document” these observations for it to become evidence?
I hope I am interpreting this correctly, because I found my interpretation to be insightful.
I meant to say the piece above, not “the following piece”
** “Qu’est-ce que la documentation?”
We did the same one for your second part (kinda), that one helped me too. Thinking about evidence in a more broad way in my field has helped me develop insights on what evidence might be less reliable, like the example you give of a person as evidence. While that evidence may be insightful, and could ultimately enhance the field at large, it also must be carefully scrutinized so that these “documented observations”, which I assume involve a degree of subjectivity, are valid evidence.
Side note, I’d say better than “interpreting correctly” you’ve shown us productive way of working, utility of this perspective on evidence!
(this is always my hope/intent: takeaway from something we read/learn being that we can do something newly/better…)
“Most commonly, evidence is taken in a positivist sense of being an object or event that is proof for the existence of some factual question.”
This was interesting to me in thinking about the types of evidence in my field again, and usually in CSCI evidence is just this: math proofs or scientific data to prove a factual question. But sometimes evidence can also be demonstrating the efficacy of a technique in problem solving, and this is not to prove a factual question, but to show an opinion on how to solve a problem. Yet if a technique is very effective, it can be taught in classes, treated as knowledge, and become more than just an opinion in its influence.
P. 23
It seems like your quote goes well with what you’ve been researching and your topic. You pose some good thoughts in here as well. I am curious as to what CSCI is?
I was looking at this quote myself, I think it does a good job at generalizing the importance of evidence and proof. I guess my question for your field is how much does evidence and proof weigh in your field. Not being to knowledgable in computer science, how much is more trial and error as opposed to actually having a goal, and providing evidence for it. I feel like in computer science the margin to work with would be large as compared to say a neuroscientist whom must do research before performing. Also, this concept brings in the ideas of theories and laws. I only took intro to programming, but I wasn’t sure if there are theories and laws in computer science, I feel like this also ties into this whole evidence and proof idea. I think CSCI is an interesting field, especially seeing how you guys communicate your information, since the coding is all really relative to each individual person.
“Despite whatever analytical flaws are evident in Orlet’s writings, they display an integrity that is admirable as it is tragic in its clear failures” (p. 12).
In this quote Day is trying to say that Orlet is showing the writing the style of prewar literature and when doing this he is taking risks in his writing. His writings are about peace but even though his writing style is not correct his point is a courageous one to go after.
Is their risk in the field of study that you area analyzing? To what degree of courage (if it can be quantified) does it take to overcome the risks associated with your study?
I too found this quote/section to be interesting. In this, the author praises Otlet for writing “poetically?” and passionately, because this is what will help his writings travel to places outside of his specific discipline, but at the same time, Day claims that these make his writings easy to pick at, and de-legitimize. It is a good point to consider, the thin line between too factual, and too passionate, and where the writing can go on either end of the spectrum.
→ key observation, on our point/question of “conventions (rhetorical/written)”: what is allowed and excluded by specialized discourse of field —
perhaps implications for knowledge being particular/situated (what can be said/written :: what can be thought?)
On page 22 Briet says, “These works are announced, and then they are cataloged in a library. These documents and others are then recopied through drawings, paintings, film and then those documents are further selected, analyzed and translated. Their ultimate conservation is determined by general techniques and by sound methods for assembling the documents.”
In a way, our perspective of what is important may be what we are focusing on. It could happen that our beliefs are deeply rooted in one topic, but the truth and reality lie in another topic which we have chosen not to focus on at all. From our selected discipline, there is a variety of information that has been sifted through by readers and authors alike to find what is most important. There might be some items entirely left out because they are not considered relevant. In this case, what people don’t know might hurt them.
I like that you chose this quote. The concept of portraying a work several different ways is an expansive way of relating to many groups of people. Do you think that different individuals find the same impact in viewing differing forms of one piece?
Your quote rings true, I think, for a lot of different disciplines. The constant sifting through, translating, paraphrasing, copying, selecting and analyzing really gets you wondering if the bulk of what we consider knowledge or information is the entire picture or just a small dot of paint in relation to the rest. How might this affect what you consider information or knowledge in the field of economics? Do you suspect there might be a deeply rooted set of standards in economics that rely on one topic while the truth and reality (as you put it) lie in another topic less-prominent?
I think you are entirely correct when you say what people don’t know might hurt them. Who is doing all of this revising to our texts? What texts get chosen above the rest? Why? Does it matter? Are we missing something big that we don’t know we are missing?
And how does this process happen, or continue/persist for “field”? decision-making, as well as “network of production” as Alita noted earlier/above…
and as Taylor reminds, significant implications on what counts (considered) as knowledge.
“When Otlet attempts to illustrate the flow of mental energy in bibliographical systems, he ofter uses examples from natural ecology such as the circulation of water through rivers, seas, and clouds in the process of rain evaporation and condensation. ” (pg 15)
This quote is in reference to the law of the conservation of energy, making an analogy to the fact that energy is never lost or created and the same can be said for the materials on the earth everything just gets moved around but nothing actually leaves. I have learned about this is my geography classes and so this struck me while reading. I thought it was a very good analogy to make!
Have you thought of how this analogy metaphorically may apply to the information in your field? I read it as saying something like: though information may move around in different ways and forms, it is still always the same information. It would be interesting to see how this plays out in our individual disciplines.
“Otlet’s conception of the social and historical attributes of texts thus demands that texts be understood in terms of their networked and evolutionary relations to one another and, subsequently, that knowledge be understood in terms of these relations… the evolutionary development of the world through knowledge is related to the expansion of knowledge through books and other documentary forms” (p. 14).
The concept of networking and evolutionary relations between texts speaks a lot to the field of science. As I have mentioned many times, knowledge within science piggy-backs on itself. A researcher must know and understand previous studies surrounding their field before they themselves can research something new to further the field and to contribute to the knowledge of the field. The same goes for most other types of knowledge. We know information because it was obtained from a specific source. It is the compilation of all of these sources that creates knowledge and the evolution of knowledge as more information (in the form of documentation) is released. This aids in my understanding of project two as it allows me to reason through the specifics of information and knowledge circulation within my field of Developmental Biology. Information is used for continual research and the compiling of knowledge. Argument arises through differences in information stemming from different sources (the relations between them).
Great application/extension, from reading, and productive illustration for us each/all to consider.
Two points to extract for further consideration:
1. it seems like you’ve used Day to emphasize how knowledge, and not just information is networked…? (circulation and the “Info Ecology,” if the science majors will allow my using that perspective, here being consequential indeed)
2. You’ve also described knowledge as created — maybe not what we typically think of for science disciplines…
is Information?
and as I noted earlier/above, is this through process of Discovery or Invention? (or both? when?)
“Cultural metaphors act as influences on technological designs (for example, computers should act like the mind) that then, in turn, influence larger cultural realms (for example, the mind should act with the instrumentality of a computer).”
I found this quote to be quite intriguing especially as I started to think of other technological devices which could have personal metaphors attributed to them as well like the cars, airplanes, etc. A way in which this might help me expand my thoughts on Leadership studies is looking at outward practices (pedagogy) and see whether there is some cultural or personal metaphor to which the practice was created for.
That quote also struck me as interesting while I was reading Day. It’s not the metaphorical implications of a computer acting like the mind that struck me as most interesting however, it was that the mind should act with the instrumentality of a computer. The latter of that quote is really meaningful. It’s interesting that the man-made inventions we have created should now reflect on how humans function. I don’t particularly believe that a human mind acting with the instrumentality of a computer is actually a positive association at all. This might be a very interesting thought to take into consideration while examining the tools/technology used in our fields!
“Otlet’s Vision was exemplary in that it spanned the breadth and paradoxes of modernist notions of information across the nineteenth and 20th century… proponent of radio and cinema in their displacement of the book(9)”
I think this is a particular important focus of the Day article. Being able to create valuable information in ones rhetoric is essential in discourse at an academic level. It also references the more recent development in other technologies as outlets for information.
“Not only through a technological régime but also through the circulation of rhetorical tropes between wider cultural domains, technologies emerge in both design and social meaning.”
I found this quote interesting because in the field of law there are a fixed set of distinctive components that define the way information is presented and researched. This processed information appears to cohere to both design and social meaning. In law the information has to be presented in a manner that is direct and to the point and will use both design and social meaning. The use of tropes is what makes this field identifiable to its field in using rhetoric to communicate the meaning.
” In addition, as I suggest throughout this book, this type of literary quality is what makes information what is it within twentieth and early twenty-first– century modernist culture”
I think this relates to your quote and your point about certain subjects are researched in design and social meaning. In our modern culture we have developed ways to communicate and share ideas through design and we have the capability to present information creatively.
Nice connections between quotes from Samantha & Abby —
and productive comments, helping us talk more concretely about “conventions (rhetorical/written)” and specialized discourse of field.
“Though the foundational texts of documentation have a historical specificity, they also share with our own time modernist characterizations about information and its relation to culture” (pg. 8).
The factor here is that any work of the past can be, in some way, related to our society present day. Though specific by nature, historical texts provide insight into period-sensitive events, linking us in some way to the past; in interpreting these, we can see a connection to how the world works now. The documentation process is advanced more so now, but similar traits of how information is collected and the type of humans collecting it, can be compared from then to present day.
Well-said, and intriguing side-note / secondary inquiry for each of us:
examining what is the documentation process? conventional to the discipline.
(worldview 2: Info — Literacy — Proof/Evidence…)
“Otlet conceptualizes the book as a container of knowledge. Knowledge for Otlet is a is a substance in the form of facts, and facts flow between the world, books, and thinkers in a circulating manner.” (pg.7)
I really enjoyed this quote because it emphasizes the importance not only of the book mentioned but of all books, as in some way shape or form they are all a container of knowledge. The definition of knowledge expressed here really plays a role in the definition of a world view. The flow of knowledge itself and understanding the flow is incredibly relevant to my discipline, considering the important relationship between facts, the world, and thought in the world of international conflict.
I really liked this quote as well. I like the fact that it relates knowledge to not just one medium, but a usable source in the world and how it interacts within that realm.
This quote is also interesting to me but in a slightly different way. I agree that it is important to have a flow of knowledge between sources and experts in a given discipline and that it is essential to share this information in order for the field to grow and succeed. However, in my discipline, which is science based, there is a flow of information issue between experts and researchers and data does not always get communicated to others in the field which severely limits the amount of growth the field can have. It is interesting how some fields are better at communicating this flow of information than others.
“This repetition in the twentieth century of rhetorical tropes about the information age is important, for in each case we witness not only a group of authors’ intentions to advance an information profession or technology’s social stature and goals but also the production and use of cultural rhetorics and institutions that aid the achievement of such intentions.”
This is a great quote from the text as it highlights the intertwined nature of all scholarly studies. I believe this quote also touches base with the communications field, as it is one of those “cultural rhetorics and insitutions that aid the achievement of such intentions” as before mentioned in the quote. Cultural rhetoric scholars study meaning-making processes in culture, which would fall under the documentations or advancement of information/technology. It is interesting that one study studies the movements of the other studies and vice versa. These cultural rhetorics and insitutions are particularly interesting because new areas of study are constantly being made visible to scholars – making this field of study ever-changing alongside human culture.
This quote really stuck out to me as well! I too found that it largely reflected the gathering of research and information within the field of Communications. “Cultural rhetoric” is a key component in understanding communication within a communicative group, it is a fascinating scope to view the rhetorical world.
“Repetition, as an amplification, leads to the universal and “geometric” expansion of knowledge” (pg 14)
I found this quote to be particularly intriguing as it treats knowledge as conceptually boundless; there is always room for growth. To study something repeatedly, amplifying details with each evaluation is to truly understand it. Acknowledging that all of life’s facets are expansive and complex, that there is always more to be learned, embodies genuine knowledge. Man is but a mere speckle in the grand scheme of the universe, we will never fully understand all of life’s complexities; however, within that realization there is knowledge and power.
→ good observation and key reminder: topic we haven’t discussed lately, from a few classes ago, needing to examine assumptions of field (evident in conventions of discipline).
Maybe not “amplification/expansion” in all fields; but each of us could consider this, what is “taken for granted” or perhaps demonstrated continually by disciplinary praxis…
“Otlet’s conception of the social and historical attributes of texts thus demands that texts be understood in context of their networked and evolutionary relations to one another and, subsequently ‚that knowledge be understood in terms of those relations.”
I think this quote encompasses the concept of discourse community and the context at which we are looking at our sources. This idea is that we should not just look at the information by what it says, but who wrote it, when did they write it, what did the author read/see/hear that made him come to a conclusion and to write about a certain topic. It looks at works as a network and as a connected incidence more so than individual instances of thought.
Right! this is perspective I was trying to introduce Monday with “Information Ecology” view
(we hadn’t read Day yet, but I think we all sorta know this model for our field…?)
“Rhetorical diffusion leads to technological design, development, and acceptance as well as to the shaping of culture according to technological models. Tropes of technology, and especially of information not only metaphorically repeat themselves through different domains of culture but also metonymically leverage history forcing societies to develop according to “inevitable” technological models” (Day, 11)
Day was discussing how cultural metaphors act as influences on technological design like how computers work as our minds. Rhetorical diffusion is causing us to rely on technology for our knowledge that we use to learn. Day mentions that our societies may have no choice but to develop into understanding and only using the technology that we have in order to succeed.
Also, I found this interesting since we used our videos to share a story and this is an example of our technology today being useful in a different way it wasn’t before.
I wonder if our reliance has always kind of been at the same level, but just appeared in different ways? Like how maybe 50 years ago, somebody would show another person something they saw in a newspaper, but now we’d show something we found on facebook. Has our reliance on technology in its various forms always been there, or is it just simply getting worse with the surge of new tech?
“Most commonly, evidence is taken in a positivist sense of being an object or event that is proof for the existence of some factual question.” (pg. 23)
This is thought provoking because in my field this statement is true, business. But, in my discipline within that field, this is not true because leadership in business is a very subjective topic. Also there are different forms of leadership depending on the kind of organization you are involved in, and what their goals are. This is something that i am finding tough to do in my disciplne, but the articles i am finding are very helpful and interesting.
I find this quote interesting as well, as it can describe a situation that can occur in the Classics department: if there is a theory involving a passage (typically involving its relationship to historical events), anything found within the lines can (and will) be used as evidence to support the theory.
→ good application, as each of us should do: asking “what is evidence/proof, and what is assumed or long-established, in my discipline?”
(“positivist,” object, event, factual — not necessarily what we’ll all notice, but examples of types of insights we might have by questioning)
“…Otlet conceptualizes the book as a container of knowledge. Knowledge for Otlet is a substance in the form of facts, and facts flow between the world, books, and thinkers in a circulating manner” (pg. 13).
I find these lines to be interesting, as this is how I personally view books. And, to connect this idea to my major, this concept roughly summarizes the Classical word: knowledgeable people often knew how to write, and would put down as many facts as they knew into writing, typically in a book or other similar passage; in turn, those who could read would read the works, and would thus learn the facts for themselves. It’s an interesting way to describe how literacy worked back in the past.
I think the definition of a fact is really interesting to even think about. What ultimately makes something real? Back in the day people thought the earth was flat, so was that a fact then? or was it never a fact? its interesting to think that facts might be written in books all the time and can ultimately be false. So are facts even knowledge? Just something to think about!
“…Documentation is both a symptom and producer of modernist culture, it is important to examine these texts not only for their historical influence on later developments in information technology and information science but also as symptoms of the birth of a culture of information”
–This quote really stuck out to me because i found it very intriguing that he realized that the information he was writing would have an effect on social aspects of culture, but also that culture would effect what he writes. Ultimately making it a two way street. I think this really has a lot to do with the prevalence of psychological disorders all over the world. They are hugely culturally influenced and they way we present them in the DSM (or if they are even in the DSM) has a strong effect on how people perceive this disorder in a social context.
I think that your remark to the fact that what he writes reflects culture, as well as, that culture will reflect what he writes. I also think that this is a very interesting statement in that one is reliant upon the other. Looking into this statement you can realize that what is said for one culture, will not always be said for the other.
It is very interesting that he realizes that the culture effects him and his writing as well as his wrigint effects cltural aspects. It seems like it is an infinate process. Information is constantly evolving. People will read his work and they will become educated from it and impact the society from it. One effects another and builds upon itself.
Great quote, lot to unpack there!
Maybe most helpful for us, “symptom and producer” being perspective we might take on particular instances of “knowledge” (texts) within Information Ecology of discipline…?
“the principle obstacle to unification remains the multiplicity of language , of this Babel which stands in opposition to both understanding and to coöperation”(34).
When people think about communication, they tend to only think about interpersonal communication(face-to-face). But, understanding the different parts of communication like the different theories that can assist you in becoming a better communicator are utilized, but unnoticed. This quote from the reading interests me because it makes not to how linguistics is key in documentary. But, if you use certain speech codes, or a dialect that is not understood by the target listener than they have failed to use the accommodation theory effectively. That is where the use of “Universal language” is needed, as well as useful in communication context.
“As a trope for architectural, social, and natural orders, the book constitutes, at least since the sixteenth century, an exemplary instance of the ability of one technology, raised by institutions and rhetoric to a cultural level, to historically and socially organize other series of bodies, technologies, and actions” (11).
This sentence and the following paragraph struck me as important because it highlights the importance and lasting impact of new technology and new ways of presenting information. The book represents a milestone in communication that started the production of many other forms of information since then up until the present day. This reminded me of the article that I chose to rhetorically analyze in that it introduced new technology into a specific field for the purpose of encouraging other new helpful forms of communication for the future of the field. My article introduced a new sub-field of Neuroscience called “computational neuroscience” that aims to bring scientists together to collectively share data. This new technology, like the book, will likely give rise to other new forms of technology to help further communication within the Neuroscience field (as stated as part of the conclusion of the article). This is an important aspect of growth in every field in order for researchers to continue discovering and communicating their findings.
I like this point that you make, and it relates to the point others are making on this blog about communication between different dialects. The article also points out the difficulty of the variety of languages and the pitfalls of having so many discourse communities even within the same language. I wonder if the explosion of innovation and knowledge will ever lead to technology that could possibly quantify and organize it, or if it is growing at a rate that we will never be able to catch up with? For example, are the different medical and scientific fields ever going to be able to effectively communicate, as every field is expanding at such an enormous rate?
Great quote, and nice extension/application for your study!
Two potential “take-aways”:
“raised by institutions and rhetoric to a cultural level” — one particular technology (codex/print book) serves to
“organize other series of bodies, technologies, and actions” → as well as Information and Knowledge.
1. You and Paul both note the implications for communication ‐ to which I would add the questions for knowledge (what forms “count,” “circulate,” get omitted…)
2. invoking the Information Ecology model (Monday) of the “discourse community” within field, this is key reminder for us to ask/identify which Institutions are elevating/codifying (maybe even monetizing? entrenching?) certain forms of information, expertise, communication…??
These are huge questions/issues; but, we can focus more concretely by inquiring/examining “Institutions” of various sorts and roles
(in other words, each of us should try to “inventory” who the “players” are within the field ecosystem)
“Despite having a formal structure that is unitary and singular, Otlet’s book-organism is not closed and self-contained in it’s origins and future. Instead, the bibliographical ‘law of organization’ suggests that books contain and constitute networks or webs, both internally and externally in their relations with one another and to the world at large.”
I found this quote interesting because it somewhat references the activity that we did in class the other day, where we looked up articles that had cited the article that we’re using in class. This passage suggests that books form these huge webs through referencing, that allow knowledge to spread far and wide (to different fields/ disciplines ect.) in a fairly efficient manner. This quote was useful for me, because in a way, I am studying about how information arrives in the hands of film historians, and how social and political context, make their ways into film history as a whole. I’m wondering how the “web” of book information, aids and hurts author’s when trying to argue on topics in my discipline.
“In Otlet’s writings, the book emerges in all its rhetorical splendor, highlighting the metaphysical, historical, and rhetorical genealogies that would infuse the social meaning of later technologies, such as radio, film, television, and in our own day, the internet (page 11)”.
It is interesting to think about how information and the way it is accessible has changed so much with time. The advances in these types of documentation are thought to help the society at a whole. It is more accessible to obtain information, and to be connected with the world. People can become more aware of current topics that are happening world wide, and they can know what is right vs. wrong based on their education. People can be closer, and connected through the age of the internet. In the education system, the retrieval of information has changed so much. Research papers have been conducted though opening an encyclopedia. Where we can now go on the internet, and receive infinite amount of information.
That’s so interesting to think about that in aspects of Education. It’s true that we don’t necessarily have to go through many book s to find some information. I think that the aspect of research has changed completely too, because a lot of it can be dependent of search website.
“What is important to note here is how a certain privileging of a technical model works to elevate documentation or a science of information socially but at the cost of mapping social space according to the operational values and language of those technical-professional concerns.”
This quote speaks to the fact of documentation that cultures are created by professionals in given fields, but these cultures are biased toward the specific concerns and values of the speakers; this can set up a culture in one point of history with a bias that bleeds into another period of history without being noticed. Oftentimes the common practice for a given field is taken for granted, and questioning it is not welcomed in a professional culture. For music, I find this can be true when one comes to the wealth of research and study of Western schools of thought; the study of music has become so intrinsically based on a 12-tone, written system that many professionals, when faced with the prospect of studying a foreign culture’s music, find that they have no vocabulary or technique to even begin to discuss, let alone study, that music. This concept can be applied to what we have discussed in class with regards to Knowledge and Discourse communities, as these two ideas can create a specific closed culture as they interact.
I liked your take on this quote, I had a similar thought too. In my field, the issue is mapping rather than music. Many in the West/former imperial world discount or have a hard time understanding indigenous mapping strategies.
“Inasmuch as this concept not only embodies the physical object of the book but also is reflective of social and natural “facts,” it represented for Otlet a concrete embodiment of the history if true knowledge and is thus a vehicle to global understanding” (pg 10)
This quote enlightens the meaning of “worldview” to me because it takes this simple book and loads on a whole new perspective or idea or knowledge that should shared with the world. I think this quote also helps to understand that every text is written with a purpose that is meant to be shared with the world. Otherwise why write it?
I agree. This quote is very powerful and I feel like it can relate to many of our majors/fields of study. No matter what the content of the book is, it has a certain purpose to fulfill, and the author wrote it intending to make some impact on an audience.
I agree, I think it is interesting that he mentions facts as in observations going back to the purpose and origin of writing and explains why it is so important.
“Otlet’s understanding of documentation was expressed through his trope of ‘the book’.”
The rest of the quote is rather lengthy and superfluous so I will sum it up as dealing with the concept of the book being almost irrefutable fact. This is an interesting idea to play with, as most of what we are taught to learn from at a young age is simply books. However this is changing in our digital era where feasibly every book we could ever want to read is online. When was the last time any one of us bought a book to read up on a certain idea or subject outside of the required books for a class.
It also calls to mind why books have been assumed to have absolute knowledge on a certain subject. I know at least in my field, people rarely publish entire books on a specific subject, they are mostly now just published articles, and even more some are published digitally. I am not too certain on how difficult it sis to get a book published, but I’m sure that if you had enough money, you could force anything to get published, I mean shit, even the church of Scientology has published works. I guess what I am getting at is that books are not absolute centers of knowledge in today’s day and age.
““The evolution of knowledge follows the laws of progress even as the effect of books on one another may be revolutionary”(pg 15).
I found this line to be most interesting in reference to my field. This whole passage speaks about knowledge, but it is not the knowledge that I originally thought of when I was looking into my article. I took on the position that knowledge was the ability to know books, and concepts, however outlet makes a great point in saying that, that is only the beginning of knowledge. There is only so much that we can include I’m a book, and although we may learn everything we can from books, it takes progress or mimetics in order to actually take on this idea of evolutionary knowledge. It makes sense in the sciences that things change, and using books as tools, we as scientist do indeed gain knowledge by seeing others progress, and us actually doing tasks in order to progress our current research.
Nice use of Day as springboard for inquiry, and great reminder about “nature of knowledge” —
distinguishing process/results, information, and discourse (“books”) and considering factors like time and circulation (which reminds us knowledge, and maybe information, is situated)
Knowledge as a “substance in the form of facts and facts flow between the world, books thinkers in a circulating manner”. (P12) Otlet
A documents “status as evidence” in a field. (P23) Briet
Both of these quotes really jumped out at me as I’m trying to figure out how information in circulated within my field and what information in the digital age counts as relevant information. I also like the way the Otlet thought of combining information into a matrix more that half a century before the hyperlink was a reality. I think that in my field, this idea of hyperlink in an important one. Often I’m working with analog paper resources but have to jump to other media types in order to finish my analysis of the paper source. In that way I sort of create my own hyperlink system. Next, when I’m trying to decide which sources to include in my linking system, I have to ask the question stated in the Briet quote. I have to decide what evidence or finding is of importance.
→ very productive and intriguing line of inquiry to link the process of knowledge with the structure/forms/conventions of the discourse that communicates information
(not that you said this explicitly, but you raised this connection for me!)
As I noted earlier/above a few times, we each might examine knowledge in discipline as process of Discovery or Invention — recalling too, as you remind, the material components…
“Rather than this quality being scene as a violation of “science,” however, it is precisely what allows Otlet’s texts to reach beyond a narrow professional realm and into the future.”
I think this is a valid point that we haven’t gotten to yet. It explains how Otlet is able to preserve his writings in a way that makes them relevant after his time. It is important to remember that we write in order to be able to leave something behind and understand things better so it makes sense that he would “violate” norms in order to reach a new understanding.
“For Otlet, books are part of an evolutionary process of thought, and as such, books contain what came before them in other books. The manner of this evolution from one book to another is very specific: it occurs in terms of repetition. Repetition for Otlet, is a universal law of not simply repeating the same with the same result, but it is a peculiar type of repeating that is characterized as an amplification.” (14)
I find this to be interesting simply because I have never thought of information this way. Otlet refers to books in the above passage, but this concept of new information containing old information can apply to articles to, or any type of written information. My article contains information that existed in old articles by citing those articles, but also contains new information that amplifies knowledge.