September 14, 2005
The Web of Learning: Staying in a Virtual World
Michael Mahoney
Professor of History and Technology, Princeton University
Minutes of the First Meeting of the 64th Year
At 10.16 a.m. President Haynes called the ninety-six members of the t1st meeting of the 64th year of the Old Guard to order. John Marks led the sung invocation and Bill Haynes welcomed back members to the fall term.
John Frederick read the minutes of the meeting of 18th May written by Philip Dresdner, at which the subject was Lawrenceville School.
Seven guests were introduced: Julis Apse, Gordon Mack, Herb Abelson, Ben Colbert, Lynn Livingston, Jack Riley and Harold Ross by John Tiebout" J.B. Smith, Herbert Kane, Jim Deneen, Bob Thompson, Tom Cawley and Bill Haynes, respectively.
A period of silence was observed for three deceased members: Jack Kramer, Holt Munay, and David Rose.
Don Dickason made announcements with customary reluctance about Jim Johnson having been omitted by his computer, and the meeting of the Membership Committee to follow this meeting.
The President then reminded us of the Executive Committee meeting to take place today in the Nassau Club, and that next week's talk would be at the Friend Centre.
Bob Brown introduced Michael S. Mahoney, Professor of History and Technology at Princeton, who talked on "The Web of Learning: Staying Real in a Virtual World."
My report on this talk will be conditioned by the fact that I could find no one knowledgeable about computers willing to take these minutes, but I take comfort from the speaker's telling us that information does not equal knowledge and that computers can do nothing without being instructed by other disciplines in the humanities, and the fact that if I were facile with computer terminology, you might not understand me. Also, I am handicapped that the advanced technology of our recording tape chose to record at an inaudible double-speed. However, I discovered the back-up tape was reliable. (Future minute-takers, please take note.)
Professor Mahoney, having spotted some of his former students in the audience, traced his own history by saying that in the 60s he had concluded that there was no future in computers and decided, since computers had long been around in one form or another, he could become a historian of computers. Using power-point, he skillfully traced how the story of computers was determined by what differing special-interests wanted out of them, and by the unforeseen and often surprising demands made by other unexpected developments. He pointed out that what a computer producer took for granted was not instantly apparent to others, and that we ought to discard what later write-ups say in favor of watching what the doer actually does. He was led to say there is no scientific method in the abstract. What one thinks elementary is not necessarily understood by another.
He went into the question of why we have universities if all information - in principle - can be held within computers. It turns out that no matter how much is on line, the great majority of data is not. Another problem is that no computer or electronic system has the durability of 1600’s parchment and later paper. The ability to distinguish between useful information and dross depends on judgments that can never arise from the computer. A version of Gresham’s Law prevails - bad information drives out the good. Education is needed to be able "to spot the rot". What we tell a computer to do is determined by people as social beings. It seems that over the last forty years, the history of science and computer development converge to demonstrate the need for universities to give life to information and turn it into knowledge. Thus he saw a danger in the humanities being absorbed by computer technology. This convergence underscores several truths -. "Revolutions" in technology don't just "happen"; they are created and directed by humans. Among these common conclusions are - there is no such thing as the computer; there are only computers. Some things cannot be computed - one of these is the muscle coordination a young child learns. The speaker felt he had much in common with Henry Adams who, a hundred years before him, experienced the mental anarchy of recognizing how radically the world was changing. But the contemporary emerging world doesn't develop as one might expect - whereas we talked a few decades ago in glowing terms of the atomic age, now that is passé and we talk of the information age.
The speaker ended with reiterating his conviction that human values and decisions reign over the cyberworld, no matter how dazzled we may be by that world.
After a short time for questions, Bill Haynes adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
John Frederick
John Frederick read the minutes of the meeting of 18th May written by Philip Dresdner, at which the subject was Lawrenceville School.
Seven guests were introduced: Julis Apse, Gordon Mack, Herb Abelson, Ben Colbert, Lynn Livingston, Jack Riley and Harold Ross by John Tiebout" J.B. Smith, Herbert Kane, Jim Deneen, Bob Thompson, Tom Cawley and Bill Haynes, respectively.
A period of silence was observed for three deceased members: Jack Kramer, Holt Munay, and David Rose.
Don Dickason made announcements with customary reluctance about Jim Johnson having been omitted by his computer, and the meeting of the Membership Committee to follow this meeting.
The President then reminded us of the Executive Committee meeting to take place today in the Nassau Club, and that next week's talk would be at the Friend Centre.
Bob Brown introduced Michael S. Mahoney, Professor of History and Technology at Princeton, who talked on "The Web of Learning: Staying Real in a Virtual World."
My report on this talk will be conditioned by the fact that I could find no one knowledgeable about computers willing to take these minutes, but I take comfort from the speaker's telling us that information does not equal knowledge and that computers can do nothing without being instructed by other disciplines in the humanities, and the fact that if I were facile with computer terminology, you might not understand me. Also, I am handicapped that the advanced technology of our recording tape chose to record at an inaudible double-speed. However, I discovered the back-up tape was reliable. (Future minute-takers, please take note.)
Professor Mahoney, having spotted some of his former students in the audience, traced his own history by saying that in the 60s he had concluded that there was no future in computers and decided, since computers had long been around in one form or another, he could become a historian of computers. Using power-point, he skillfully traced how the story of computers was determined by what differing special-interests wanted out of them, and by the unforeseen and often surprising demands made by other unexpected developments. He pointed out that what a computer producer took for granted was not instantly apparent to others, and that we ought to discard what later write-ups say in favor of watching what the doer actually does. He was led to say there is no scientific method in the abstract. What one thinks elementary is not necessarily understood by another.
He went into the question of why we have universities if all information - in principle - can be held within computers. It turns out that no matter how much is on line, the great majority of data is not. Another problem is that no computer or electronic system has the durability of 1600’s parchment and later paper. The ability to distinguish between useful information and dross depends on judgments that can never arise from the computer. A version of Gresham’s Law prevails - bad information drives out the good. Education is needed to be able "to spot the rot". What we tell a computer to do is determined by people as social beings. It seems that over the last forty years, the history of science and computer development converge to demonstrate the need for universities to give life to information and turn it into knowledge. Thus he saw a danger in the humanities being absorbed by computer technology. This convergence underscores several truths -. "Revolutions" in technology don't just "happen"; they are created and directed by humans. Among these common conclusions are - there is no such thing as the computer; there are only computers. Some things cannot be computed - one of these is the muscle coordination a young child learns. The speaker felt he had much in common with Henry Adams who, a hundred years before him, experienced the mental anarchy of recognizing how radically the world was changing. But the contemporary emerging world doesn't develop as one might expect - whereas we talked a few decades ago in glowing terms of the atomic age, now that is passé and we talk of the information age.
The speaker ended with reiterating his conviction that human values and decisions reign over the cyberworld, no matter how dazzled we may be by that world.
After a short time for questions, Bill Haynes adjourned the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
John Frederick