It's very interesting to read and hear the different perspectives on what is ethics. I will now share mine:
For me ethics is simple. It is linked to (1) awareness of your own actions and the consequences they have (and might have) --in the other human being, in yourself, and in your surroundings-- and (2) the responsibility for your actions and amendments if necessary. Note that when you act, you have thought before committing the act...
I see the term morality as the particular code of ethics bounded to a certain religion. Thus the word "ethics", without (any other word accompanying it) are more universal aspects to preserve life, harmony, and consensus between people.
And in the context of engineering, ethics has traditionally been linked to the set of codes belonging to, for example, the IEEE or any other engineering professional organization. It should also include the simple ethics I mentioned before.
/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-//-/-/-/-/-/-/-//-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-//-/-/-/-/-/-/-/
Recalling our friend, Nel Noddings --why we don't send her a Christmas card? She will get happy and we'll exercise Utilitarianism-- we see that Noddings use the terms 'moral' and 'ethics' interchangeably (p. 151).
I liked some aspects of Kantianism, but not all. For example, I liked that Kant see ethical agents "constrained not to do things that will interfere with the free agency of other" (p. 159); however I must interfere if I see that the person is trying, for example, to suicide. I must interfere if an infant, child, person with a severe mental illness is being the recipient of harm by other with more strength.
If I do not have the physical conditions to stop the situation, I have the responsibility (ethics) to either call the police, or scream, or notify someone else, or do something to stop that. The other aspect I liked is his approach to do "the right (procedural aspects of ethics) rather that the good (the context or ends sought in ethical action)" (p.158). Of Utilitarianism, I liked the idea of "sensitive thinkers" (p. 160).
Going back to my simplistic definition of ethics, I see that it might fit more with Dewey, because "Dewey put much more emphasis on the responsibility of individuals and institutions than is usual in utilitarianism. For Dewey, the primary criterion of ethical behavior is willingness to accept responsibility for the full range of anticipated outcomes" (p. 163).
/-/-/-/-/-/-/-/-//-/-/-/-/-/-/-/
--I cut here to prevent myself from writing an essay --
Showing posts with label marisol_m. Show all posts
Showing posts with label marisol_m. Show all posts
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Slaton and Bix
From the readings "Equipped for life" [1] and
"Technical education at land-grants institutions during WWII" [2] :
a) "Isolation made the experience [of women in engineering] hard" [2, p. 120]
... And the quotation from a woman graduated at Cornell, in the 1930s:
And what is more ... in my country, the interaction, behavior, and jokes of some male faculty members, in and outside of the classroom, make the case even worse! Certainly, there were also many of them who had empathy, professionalism, respect, and understanding.
That's why when I came to Purdue it was so impressive for me to see the respect between male faculty members and women students. I feel treated as a human, not as a thing.
b) "Wouldn't be nice if a woman could understand such matters?" [1, p. 743]
The above quote comes from a dialogue between two women and the need of changing a burned out fuse.
That reminded me that, when I was in second year of college, I had this hunger for knowing more about some technical courses (Java, Flash, computer graphics, etc). At that moment, Z branch of the university was not giving them. I asked myself a similar question, but regarding to get the knowledge of how to repair and assemble a computer.
I mentioned to a male classmate my interest in taking a computer assembling/repairing class. He chuckled and said "... but you cannot ... you are a ___". And when he tried to say the word at the blank space, he shut up. I didn't care, I transferred to the other college branch and took all the technical classes I wanted there (including the computer repairing class).
The good thing thing of that Home Economics program was that women having this hunger to obtain more technical knowledge could have the way, at that moment, to do so through that fostering environment. The hidden 'bubbles' are the consumerist intention of the program and the undervaluing of their work (not being called 'engineering'), as discussed in class.
///////////////////////////////////////////
From the reading of Amy E. Slaton, "Reinforced Concrete and the Modernization of American Building, 1900-1930":
a) It was funny, for me, Potter's "inventory for personal characteristics" (p. 58).
Let's see, according to the inventory I have (1) ''black hair color'', (2) "average" height, (3) ''nasal'' voice tone, (4) ''foreign not-categorized'' accent, (5) "lukewarm'' religion, and (6) a ''good'' aesthetic taste (whatever that means). With all these traits, I don't have the characteristics to be an engineer in Potter's mind.
b) I would like to point out this opinion of "Charles Ellis, a professor of civil engineering" that "declared memorization of formulas to be without merit as a teaching tool" (pp. 46-47). He (a) encouraged student initiative, and (b) preferred practical laboratory work above mere lectures. The reading mentioned his preference to teach "the behavior of structures through graphical analysis -- a means of describing the mechanics of materials with geometric notation (rather than algebraic terms) that had existed since the mid-nineteenth century" (p. 47).
His essential argument, according to the author, was that "effective engineering is not like scientific work in every respect, nor should it be. Where there is work (i.e., physical, technical, productive work) to be done, one needs not classical bodies of knowledge but 'the mental powers to cope with life's problems' (...)" (p. 47).
"Technical education at land-grants institutions during WWII" [2] :
a) "Isolation made the experience [of women in engineering] hard" [2, p. 120]
... And the quotation from a woman graduated at Cornell, in the 1930s:
"She must be ready to do alone the work the men do in groups (...) [men working] with her are far more interested in flirting than in checking computations. She must be prepared for a pretty lonely academic career..." [2, pp. 120-121]This still happens today. Perhaps not that much [?], but in my personal experience, that quote was like a portrait of my own experience in computer science and engineering.
And what is more ... in my country, the interaction, behavior, and jokes of some male faculty members, in and outside of the classroom, make the case even worse! Certainly, there were also many of them who had empathy, professionalism, respect, and understanding.
That's why when I came to Purdue it was so impressive for me to see the respect between male faculty members and women students. I feel treated as a human, not as a thing.
b) "Wouldn't be nice if a woman could understand such matters?" [1, p. 743]
The above quote comes from a dialogue between two women and the need of changing a burned out fuse.
That reminded me that, when I was in second year of college, I had this hunger for knowing more about some technical courses (Java, Flash, computer graphics, etc). At that moment, Z branch of the university was not giving them. I asked myself a similar question, but regarding to get the knowledge of how to repair and assemble a computer.
I mentioned to a male classmate my interest in taking a computer assembling/repairing class. He chuckled and said "... but you cannot ... you are a ___". And when he tried to say the word at the blank space, he shut up. I didn't care, I transferred to the other college branch and took all the technical classes I wanted there (including the computer repairing class).
The good thing thing of that Home Economics program was that women having this hunger to obtain more technical knowledge could have the way, at that moment, to do so through that fostering environment. The hidden 'bubbles' are the consumerist intention of the program and the undervaluing of their work (not being called 'engineering'), as discussed in class.
///////////////////////////////////////////
From the reading of Amy E. Slaton, "Reinforced Concrete and the Modernization of American Building, 1900-1930":
a) It was funny, for me, Potter's "inventory for personal characteristics" (p. 58).
Let's see, according to the inventory I have (1) ''black hair color'', (2) "average" height, (3) ''nasal'' voice tone, (4) ''foreign not-categorized'' accent, (5) "lukewarm'' religion, and (6) a ''good'' aesthetic taste (whatever that means). With all these traits, I don't have the characteristics to be an engineer in Potter's mind.
b) I would like to point out this opinion of "Charles Ellis, a professor of civil engineering" that "declared memorization of formulas to be without merit as a teaching tool" (pp. 46-47). He (a) encouraged student initiative, and (b) preferred practical laboratory work above mere lectures. The reading mentioned his preference to teach "the behavior of structures through graphical analysis -- a means of describing the mechanics of materials with geometric notation (rather than algebraic terms) that had existed since the mid-nineteenth century" (p. 47).
His essential argument, according to the author, was that "effective engineering is not like scientific work in every respect, nor should it be. Where there is work (i.e., physical, technical, productive work) to be done, one needs not classical bodies of knowledge but 'the mental powers to cope with life's problems' (...)" (p. 47).
Friday, October 30, 2009
Class Observation: First-Year Engineering
Click here for the class observations. [I did not check for grammatical errors].
-------------
Okis...now I fixed the link.
-------------
Okis...now I fixed the link.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Expert Systems, Engineers, and Anthropologists
In these articles, what the observers viewed through their interpretations made me think about our values in the engineering work, our values in life, and the hidden agendas defining engineering and science.
/////////////////////////////////////////////
Forsythe's Article
Now, I bring the following observer's interpretations to this "digital table":
1) Engineers regard knowledge acquisition as it if were a "'thing' that can be extracted, like a mineral or a diseased tooth" (p.47).
------------------------------------------------
Other concerns expressed by the author:
1) One of the steps in developing an AI system is to select the "best" knowledge among the whole "universe" of knowledge acquired in the encyclopedias, books, interviews, etc.
////////////////////////////////////////////////
Latour, Bruno, and Woolgar
Of this article I would like to place attention to the following interpretations of the observer:
1) He/She sees "obscure activities [such] as a technician grinding the brains of rats, by realising that the eventual end product of such activity might be a highly valued diagram" (p. 52).
3) Scientists believe in the objectivity of their work.
5) The arrogance of some senior lab scientists consider the novices' questions to be annoying, because some seniors consider this knowledge to be "obvious" (pp. 76-77).
/////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////
Forsythe's Article
Now, I bring the following observer's interpretations to this "digital table":
1) Engineers regard knowledge acquisition as it if were a "'thing' that can be extracted, like a mineral or a diseased tooth" (p.47).
AI engineers have transferred the technical and cold terms of computer science and engineering to the human realm, which is in its essence warm. This AI vocabulary is part of the leakage of the idea that humanity can be mechanized, that humans can be considered machines, and that AI systems can mimic the human brain. Saying that the "human brain is a machine" or that "a human brain can be reverse-engineered" is in its core an act of degrading and devaluing humanity.2) The observer pinpointed that engineers lacked communication skills that made them dislike interviewing. They seemed to prefer the predictability of computers than the complexity of humans.
The idea of uploading and downloading knowledge of a human brain into a database, and updating this knowledge through a computer can be suspicious. Although it seems like science fiction, think about if it becomes a reality. This technology will obviously be used by people who can afford it, basically people who wish to control human populations. The benefits that it may have does not justify the dangers that it may bring.
Neither humanity nor the brain may be compared to a rigid, inflexible, and cold computer executing commands.
I would mention here that this "communication skills" problem could be more a problem of those modern society's values, beliefs, and attitudes that shape the relationships with other humans.3) They commit the error to narrow knowledge, if they focus only in traces of data coming from few experts.
------------------------------------------------
Other concerns expressed by the author:
1) One of the steps in developing an AI system is to select the "best" knowledge among the whole "universe" of knowledge acquired in the encyclopedias, books, interviews, etc.
How do we know if they missed a particular important piece of knowledge? How do we know if that piece was important to a particular group or minority? (pp. 57-58)2) The author cited Bourdieu (1977) mentioning that this exercise of building boundaries to define what is "expert knowledge" is a way that power manifests. Another citation of Bourdieu (1977) mentioned that the power that engineers exercise has political aspects.
////////////////////////////////////////////////
Latour, Bruno, and Woolgar
Of this article I would like to place attention to the following interpretations of the observer:
1) He/She sees "obscure activities [such] as a technician grinding the brains of rats, by realising that the eventual end product of such activity might be a highly valued diagram" (p. 52).
This interpretation could point a difference between the value system of the natural sciences and engineering cultures and the one of social sciences. This natural sciences value system includes the justification of using animals in laboratories.2) The hidden "rat race" is seen at the time of discussing which name will be placed first below the article's title.
3) Scientists believe in the objectivity of their work.
And here I argue that a "100% pure, extra-virgin, and cold-pressed" scientific objectivity does not exist at all.4) The identity of the scientific field that they are protecting, borrowed instruments from other fields (physics, computer science, statistics, etc).
5) The arrogance of some senior lab scientists consider the novices' questions to be annoying, because some seniors consider this knowledge to be "obvious" (pp. 76-77).
/////////////////////////////
Sunday, October 18, 2009
Week 8 [9?] Articles: Engineering as Design
For me, these articles were hard to "digest". Perhaps because I prefer the ones covering social sciences topics. However, here is my contribution:
Bruce E. Seely's Article
Seely pointed out the "imbalance caused by too much emphasis on the analytical approaches of engineering sciences" (p. 285). The practical experience needed to be transferred to the workforce, is usually not adequately developed during the college years. The focus in practical design skills was changed to scientific knowledge. With the necessary high-technology that the government needed for war, engineering schools became "greenhouses" of future engineering science researchers.
Petroski's Article
Petroski wished to make clear the distinction between an engineering and a technical person. Engineers calculate failure: "Virtually every calculation that an engineer performs (...) is a failure calculation" (p.89). The result of a calculation is acceptable only if it does not match the "failure criteria" (p.89). Technicians do not compare their calculations to a failure criteria. Then, what technicians do? The author doesn't give much explanation, but perhaps technicians limit themselves to follow a certain manual of "what to do in order to solve x or z problem" in a machine, an engine, or a computer.
Nigel Cross
This author had a playful explanation of what is design science, science of design, and scientific design. Honestly he kept me entertained for more minutes, trying to grasp his ideas.
My original idea of what design is was shaped in the first year of college, in an architecture school. The design philosophy and approach of architecture schools (at least in my country) is quite different. The design process is more intuitive, artistic, it revolves around the idea of "habitable spaces". Therefore, the main goal of the design is to create this "habitable ambient". And here we can go writing a long discourse of what means to be "habitable" and what is not...and I will not enter in such dilemmas.
I do remember that we had to use these drafting tools in a big drawing table. We had a book of architectural design (was it Chen's book.. Eek, I don't remember the author's name) that was our "bible". We had to be very, very, very careful of every line we drew. A big bold line did not have the same meaning as a thin line. A certain sketch pattern, if had a slight difference, changed the way that was perceived the volume of a structure.
I mentioned in my group's discussion that, in my country, the architecture profession is very elitist. Before the opening of a third architecture school, the main school was very selective. Only 60 students were admitted each year (now that has slightly changed). At the end of the year, 30 or less remained. I remember the conversations that architects had about engineers: "oh, those civil engineers... They don't really design. They just construct these 'plastas de edificios'" (its like a pejorative description to call buildings that aren't ''well-designed'', in architectural terms). I even remember a class where the professor showed us the contrast between designs made by civil engineers and those made by architects.
It was interesting for me to see the contrast in the engineering school. Then the conversations between engineers, were somewhat different: "oh, those architects... They don't really design...their designs are so irrational..."
Bruce E. Seely's Article
Seely pointed out the "imbalance caused by too much emphasis on the analytical approaches of engineering sciences" (p. 285). The practical experience needed to be transferred to the workforce, is usually not adequately developed during the college years. The focus in practical design skills was changed to scientific knowledge. With the necessary high-technology that the government needed for war, engineering schools became "greenhouses" of future engineering science researchers.
Petroski's Article
Petroski wished to make clear the distinction between an engineering and a technical person. Engineers calculate failure: "Virtually every calculation that an engineer performs (...) is a failure calculation" (p.89). The result of a calculation is acceptable only if it does not match the "failure criteria" (p.89). Technicians do not compare their calculations to a failure criteria. Then, what technicians do? The author doesn't give much explanation, but perhaps technicians limit themselves to follow a certain manual of "what to do in order to solve x or z problem" in a machine, an engine, or a computer.
Nigel Cross
This author had a playful explanation of what is design science, science of design, and scientific design. Honestly he kept me entertained for more minutes, trying to grasp his ideas.
My original idea of what design is was shaped in the first year of college, in an architecture school. The design philosophy and approach of architecture schools (at least in my country) is quite different. The design process is more intuitive, artistic, it revolves around the idea of "habitable spaces". Therefore, the main goal of the design is to create this "habitable ambient". And here we can go writing a long discourse of what means to be "habitable" and what is not...and I will not enter in such dilemmas.
I do remember that we had to use these drafting tools in a big drawing table. We had a book of architectural design (was it Chen's book.. Eek, I don't remember the author's name) that was our "bible". We had to be very, very, very careful of every line we drew. A big bold line did not have the same meaning as a thin line. A certain sketch pattern, if had a slight difference, changed the way that was perceived the volume of a structure.
I mentioned in my group's discussion that, in my country, the architecture profession is very elitist. Before the opening of a third architecture school, the main school was very selective. Only 60 students were admitted each year (now that has slightly changed). At the end of the year, 30 or less remained. I remember the conversations that architects had about engineers: "oh, those civil engineers... They don't really design. They just construct these 'plastas de edificios'" (its like a pejorative description to call buildings that aren't ''well-designed'', in architectural terms). I even remember a class where the professor showed us the contrast between designs made by civil engineers and those made by architects.
It was interesting for me to see the contrast in the engineering school. Then the conversations between engineers, were somewhat different: "oh, those architects... They don't really design...their designs are so irrational..."
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Layton and Noble
I first would like to mention that my original idea of "what is an engineer" is right now with a big question mark. I had the "enlightened" idea of an engineer as a professional who brings "beneficial things to people". There's no such thing. I'm trying to construct a definition; but right now I just have this cloudy image of a "compound mix" made of an artist, a businessman, a worker, and an entrepreneur.
Four other pillars are (a) the belief that laws of nature can also govern man and society (p. 66);
(b) the high importance given to methods and the mind rather than the subject (p. 66);
(c) the appropriation of the Puritanism idea of success established in moral principles of hard work, self-denial, initiative, and loyalty (p. 70);
(d) the emphasis in the "scientific professionalism of the engineer" (p. 70-71) and the transfer of the scientific reputation to the profession (p. 58).
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Layton in his book "The Revolt of Engineers" mentioned that the idea of social responsibility was one of the pillars to build the identity of engineers (p. 62). Several speeches between 1895 and 1920 portrayed engineers as professionals who "had a special social responsibility to protect progress and to insure that technological change led to human benefit" (p. 57). Here I have to highlight that this idea of progress is the one that have "modern" societies, founded partially by the idea that "material achievements would benefit humanity and advance civilization" (p. 59).Four other pillars are (a) the belief that laws of nature can also govern man and society (p. 66);
(b) the high importance given to methods and the mind rather than the subject (p. 66);
(c) the appropriation of the Puritanism idea of success established in moral principles of hard work, self-denial, initiative, and loyalty (p. 70);
(d) the emphasis in the "scientific professionalism of the engineer" (p. 70-71) and the transfer of the scientific reputation to the profession (p. 58).
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Chapter 3 of Noble's book "America by Design: Science, Technology, and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism" quoted many thoughts of engineers about the profession. The following is a summary of the main themes of their thoughts:
1) Emphasis in the capitalist ideology (p. 34-35).
2) Urgency to add the businessman, manager, and ''skilled worker for a large corporation'' component in the engineer's identity (p. 37-39).
3) Concern about the engineering profession becoming a "tool of those whose aim is to control man and to profit by their knowledge" (author citing O. Bates, p. 44).
4) Engineering schools shifted their focus to tailor future engineers to the industry and powerful corporations interests (p. 45).
1) Emphasis in the capitalist ideology (p. 34-35).
2) Urgency to add the businessman, manager, and ''skilled worker for a large corporation'' component in the engineer's identity (p. 37-39).
3) Concern about the engineering profession becoming a "tool of those whose aim is to control man and to profit by their knowledge" (author citing O. Bates, p. 44).
4) Engineering schools shifted their focus to tailor future engineers to the industry and powerful corporations interests (p. 45).
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Jonassen, Koen, and Bucciarelli
[This post belong to last week's reading: Jonassen et al., Koen, and Bucciarelli)
Jonassen, Strobel, and Lee
Ill-structured problems are those found in engineering workplace, as contrasted with the well-defined problems that engineering students find in classrooms. Seven main categories were defined from the qualitative analysis of the interviews with active engineers. Each category describes common problems, recommendations, or typical daily experiences engineers encounter in the workplace.
It's the first time I stumble into the concept of "ill-structured problems", so it is implied that classroom problems are "healthy-structured problems". As I would say, classroom problems are "organically-grown, gluten-free, and low-fat" with minor "bugs", compared to workplace problems.
If future engineers need to develop good team relationship skills, then, we should encourage them to take more practical psychology-type of seminars and workshops; in addition to encouraging them to be less isolated and more involved in team-work. One thing I used to hear of my classmates (including myself) was: "I prefer to work alone. Team work is so complex". Engineering schools should actively keep addressing that students' difficulty, to make the transition to workplace the smoothest possible.
The three articles stated that engineering problems are also composed of traditional "non-engineering factors"; such as empathy, motivation, good relationships, effective communication, collaboration, compassion, value of diversity, etc. (I added other items to the list). I remember that in the Software Engineering classes, professors barely taught about the "non-engineering issues". They focused in the traditional issues of complying to government agencies, laws and policies, privacy issues, how to organize the project based in a software development life-cycle model, keeping track of the budget, project phases, etc... As if engineers had only a "binary machine" in their minds, without a human component.
[...I'll cut here...]
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Jonassen, Strobel, and Lee
Ill-structured problems are those found in engineering workplace, as contrasted with the well-defined problems that engineering students find in classrooms. Seven main categories were defined from the qualitative analysis of the interviews with active engineers. Each category describes common problems, recommendations, or typical daily experiences engineers encounter in the workplace.
It's the first time I stumble into the concept of "ill-structured problems", so it is implied that classroom problems are "healthy-structured problems". As I would say, classroom problems are "organically-grown, gluten-free, and low-fat" with minor "bugs", compared to workplace problems.
If future engineers need to develop good team relationship skills, then, we should encourage them to take more practical psychology-type of seminars and workshops; in addition to encouraging them to be less isolated and more involved in team-work. One thing I used to hear of my classmates (including myself) was: "I prefer to work alone. Team work is so complex". Engineering schools should actively keep addressing that students' difficulty, to make the transition to workplace the smoothest possible.
The three articles stated that engineering problems are also composed of traditional "non-engineering factors"; such as empathy, motivation, good relationships, effective communication, collaboration, compassion, value of diversity, etc. (I added other items to the list). I remember that in the Software Engineering classes, professors barely taught about the "non-engineering issues". They focused in the traditional issues of complying to government agencies, laws and policies, privacy issues, how to organize the project based in a software development life-cycle model, keeping track of the budget, project phases, etc... As if engineers had only a "binary machine" in their minds, without a human component.
[...I'll cut here...]
//--//--//--//--//--//--//--//--//
Koen
I agree with Koen in his statement that "engineers cause change" (p.11) and that it's "not just any change, but the best change (...)" (p.10). However there are some things I would like to bring to surface here. I found somewhat disgusting the author's example of "the prince who wants the divorce of his daughter" as part of the examples of what is "correctly called an engineer because (...). Each wants to change, to modify, or to convert the world represented by one state into a world represented by a different one" (p. 10). Is this "engineer" taking in count the freedom and decision of the other human being? Just because you are changing from state A to state B, and you are taking in count the "best change within the available resources" (p. 10), that doesn't make you an engineer. You must have an ethical and benevolent component for humanity (or the other fellow being).
If we choose a real example instead of the prince example, Adolf Hitler wanted to change a whole society for what he thought it was the "best", following a certain race-hate theory; but we ought not consider that to be an "engineering act", because to be an engineer is not to be a creator of instability, malady, unfavorable causes to humanity (or to another individual).
[.. I'll cut here because if I keep going, I'll end-up writing more than what it's needed for this post...]
The other concept discussed by Koen was the idea of "the best", that is currently linked with the idea of what is optimum, within the engineering-mathematical level. In engineering, the optimum level is defined by calculus and mathematical formulas; however, for example, a computer with less optimization, defined in one society, may be defined as "optimum" in a society without the resources to acquire the "most advanced" technology (here I am sticking this to my context of Computer Eng.).
Bucciarelli
Of Bucciarelli's article, I wish to bring his emphasis in the importance to know the distinction between engineering and science. Both terms are used interchangeably. Scientists, as the author stated, work within a small, ordered, and well-defined context. The variables that an engineering problem have, come from different areas, away from the traditional perimeters of the technical-mathematics realm.
I did also like his explanation of failure as a "social construct" (p. 25). For an event to be labeled as a 'failure', the "beliefs, judgments, and claims of persons concerned with the event (...)" (p.25) construct it as such.
I agree with Koen in his statement that "engineers cause change" (p.11) and that it's "not just any change, but the best change (...)" (p.10). However there are some things I would like to bring to surface here. I found somewhat disgusting the author's example of "the prince who wants the divorce of his daughter" as part of the examples of what is "correctly called an engineer because (...). Each wants to change, to modify, or to convert the world represented by one state into a world represented by a different one" (p. 10). Is this "engineer" taking in count the freedom and decision of the other human being? Just because you are changing from state A to state B, and you are taking in count the "best change within the available resources" (p. 10), that doesn't make you an engineer. You must have an ethical and benevolent component for humanity (or the other fellow being).
If we choose a real example instead of the prince example, Adolf Hitler wanted to change a whole society for what he thought it was the "best", following a certain race-hate theory; but we ought not consider that to be an "engineering act", because to be an engineer is not to be a creator of instability, malady, unfavorable causes to humanity (or to another individual).
[.. I'll cut here because if I keep going, I'll end-up writing more than what it's needed for this post...]
The other concept discussed by Koen was the idea of "the best", that is currently linked with the idea of what is optimum, within the engineering-mathematical level. In engineering, the optimum level is defined by calculus and mathematical formulas; however, for example, a computer with less optimization, defined in one society, may be defined as "optimum" in a society without the resources to acquire the "most advanced" technology (here I am sticking this to my context of Computer Eng.).
//--//--//--//--//--//--//--//--//
Bucciarelli
Of Bucciarelli's article, I wish to bring his emphasis in the importance to know the distinction between engineering and science. Both terms are used interchangeably. Scientists, as the author stated, work within a small, ordered, and well-defined context. The variables that an engineering problem have, come from different areas, away from the traditional perimeters of the technical-mathematics realm.
I did also like his explanation of failure as a "social construct" (p. 25). For an event to be labeled as a 'failure', the "beliefs, judgments, and claims of persons concerned with the event (...)" (p.25) construct it as such.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Reflexion on Classification
The article of Bowker and Leigh explores the hidden parts of the classification purpose in humans, and how this may lead to ethical and social problems.
These are some quotes I found important and my commentary or example is below each of them:
1) "For any individual, group or situation, classifications and standards give advantage or they give suffering. Jobs are made and lost; some regions benefit at the expense of others." (p. 6)
2) "(...)the act of assigning a classification can be socially or ethically charged." (p.25)
These are some quotes I found important and my commentary or example is below each of them:
1) "For any individual, group or situation, classifications and standards give advantage or they give suffering. Jobs are made and lost; some regions benefit at the expense of others." (p. 6)
2) "(...)the act of assigning a classification can be socially or ethically charged." (p.25)
People of very low socio-economic backgrounds do struggle everyday to obtain better education, better job skills, and better job conditions. It is somewhat easier for me to link this with my country context. As an example, I can mention the problem of people living in government-supported public residential complex and poor communities. And I think this issue also applies to USA. A job recruiter should not discard an applicant because he or she comes from one of these communities, but who can really ensure that? You can have many government offices trying to help, ombudsman, laws, etc; but meanwhile you have a population reinforcing everyday the misconceptions surrounding people coming from public residential complex, you will maintain that sort of hidden classification for the purpose of segregation and benefiting a small population.
3) "The decision to classify students by their standardized achievement and aptitude tests valorizes some kinds of knowledge skills and renders other kinds invisible." (p. 6)
If you will solely rely on the GRE or SAT test, for example, to measure a student's potential to undertake graduate or college studies, many people will be unfairly evaluated as "low achievement students". How do you know if those discarded students had the potential to become leaders and top contributors if you don't give them the opportunity, if you don't use other mediums to evaluate these students?4) "(...)classifications shift historically." (p. 19)
Taking the example of children with learning disabilities. Perhaps 50 or 100 years from now, that term will be outdated because somehow professionals will find the effective ways to integrate a series of factors (don't know which ones) ranging from nutrition to specific teaching methods that will make those children succeed in a different learning environment. That environment will not be anyhow similar to what we have now.
About the questions that Pawley asked today, my comment is that a blog might be perceived as like if one were "talking out loud in an empty room"; however, people who are not accustom to share their opinions can find this medium a good one to start out. Eventually, the skills that have been developed here, will be transposed to a different context.Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Noddings 5-7
Chapter 5
Formal Logic is important for developing the skills needed in upper levels of education. When facing the daily problems of life it is also useful; however, in this case I see it more as an additional "tool" in one's "toolbox" for solving life problems. The other "tools" are more abstract; such as intuition, empathy, etc.
Formal logic will always be bound to a context. In order to select the "True" or "False" in a statement, you need to know the context to judge it. And even when you know the context, bias may emerge.
Taking a very simple example, the expression "If I eat hamburgers, then I will get fat". You have to know who is the "I", what type of hamburgers are we talking about, the physical exercise and condition of the person, what it means to be "fat", etc. When you have defined the context, then you can make a decision of the outcome of the expression.
The perspective of Jane Roland Martin, as discussed by Noddings between pages 101-103, was interesting for me: the idea that critical thinking is meant also to connect with others in order to transform the world in a positive way. In addition, I found interesting the discussion of the problems arising when critical theory is applied to critical literacy. When the newly literate starts to read and think critically, they may see his or her true condition and might work to change his or her condition. The discussion ends informing that, as Freire and other philosophers have found, the former oppressed turns to be the actual oppressor.
Chapter 6
Of this chapter, it drew me more the discussion of "what is the truth" and "constructivism". I agreed with the statement of K. Popper that, as quoted by Noddings, truth is a ""regulative ideal" -- something unattainable toward which we nevertheless strive". Meaning that the quest to find the absolute certainty is unreachable; however, you can use probability theory to obtain the degree of certainty. It is like if we were measuring the degree of the truth of something. I did also find interesting Dewey's forward-looking-epistemology, because the weight he places in the consequences of one's beliefs against the justifications made through past conditions.
Constructivism is the philosophy that states that "all knowledge is constructed; knowledge is not the result of passive reception" (Noddings, p.126-127). What I do not agree here is with the view that the construction of knowledge is through a generic cognitive machine, identical in all individuals. My view is that every individual constructs the knowledge based on his or her idiosyncratic way.
About Piaget's work, I did agree with those who point out that, instead of emphasizing in the manipulation of objects, the focus must be the interaction with people. This reminds me of the preference that many people have to ask questions directly to another person; even thou they can search for the answer on the Internet. Web sites such as Yahoo Answers try to address that necessity of direct contact with a person, although the quality of answers rarely is the ideal one. :-p
Chapter 7
Of this chapter I will comment about the discussion of Noddings: the metascience domain and the questions that Kuhn addresses. Some of these are:
1) Which problem do scientist need to resolve with more urgency?
2) Should they need to consider the effects of their research on individuals, communities, and the world?
Noddings (p.138) discusses: "Some scientists argue that they are not responsible for the uses to which their science is put. Science is employed to advance knowledge. Discussions of how its products are used belongs to the domain of politics or moral theory. Can this sharp separation be supported, or can we find difficulties in it?"
I have to admit that when I started the Master's degree and began to be more familiarized with the research labs, research topics nowadays, etc... I told to myself: "this is pointless... for what these [x] researches will serve to alleviate the most important social problems nowadays? Why they are not focusing their energies in solving xyz social problems instead?" That reality made me almost quit Computer Engineering 2 years ago.
Formal Logic is important for developing the skills needed in upper levels of education. When facing the daily problems of life it is also useful; however, in this case I see it more as an additional "tool" in one's "toolbox" for solving life problems. The other "tools" are more abstract; such as intuition, empathy, etc.
Formal logic will always be bound to a context. In order to select the "True" or "False" in a statement, you need to know the context to judge it. And even when you know the context, bias may emerge.
Taking a very simple example, the expression "If I eat hamburgers, then I will get fat". You have to know who is the "I", what type of hamburgers are we talking about, the physical exercise and condition of the person, what it means to be "fat", etc. When you have defined the context, then you can make a decision of the outcome of the expression.
The perspective of Jane Roland Martin, as discussed by Noddings between pages 101-103, was interesting for me: the idea that critical thinking is meant also to connect with others in order to transform the world in a positive way. In addition, I found interesting the discussion of the problems arising when critical theory is applied to critical literacy. When the newly literate starts to read and think critically, they may see his or her true condition and might work to change his or her condition. The discussion ends informing that, as Freire and other philosophers have found, the former oppressed turns to be the actual oppressor.
-----------------
Chapter 6
Of this chapter, it drew me more the discussion of "what is the truth" and "constructivism". I agreed with the statement of K. Popper that, as quoted by Noddings, truth is a ""regulative ideal" -- something unattainable toward which we nevertheless strive". Meaning that the quest to find the absolute certainty is unreachable; however, you can use probability theory to obtain the degree of certainty. It is like if we were measuring the degree of the truth of something. I did also find interesting Dewey's forward-looking-epistemology, because the weight he places in the consequences of one's beliefs against the justifications made through past conditions.
Constructivism is the philosophy that states that "all knowledge is constructed; knowledge is not the result of passive reception" (Noddings, p.126-127). What I do not agree here is with the view that the construction of knowledge is through a generic cognitive machine, identical in all individuals. My view is that every individual constructs the knowledge based on his or her idiosyncratic way.
About Piaget's work, I did agree with those who point out that, instead of emphasizing in the manipulation of objects, the focus must be the interaction with people. This reminds me of the preference that many people have to ask questions directly to another person; even thou they can search for the answer on the Internet. Web sites such as Yahoo Answers try to address that necessity of direct contact with a person, although the quality of answers rarely is the ideal one. :-p
-----------------
Chapter 7
Of this chapter I will comment about the discussion of Noddings: the metascience domain and the questions that Kuhn addresses. Some of these are:
1) Which problem do scientist need to resolve with more urgency?
2) Should they need to consider the effects of their research on individuals, communities, and the world?
Noddings (p.138) discusses: "Some scientists argue that they are not responsible for the uses to which their science is put. Science is employed to advance knowledge. Discussions of how its products are used belongs to the domain of politics or moral theory. Can this sharp separation be supported, or can we find difficulties in it?"
I have to admit that when I started the Master's degree and began to be more familiarized with the research labs, research topics nowadays, etc... I told to myself: "this is pointless... for what these [x] researches will serve to alleviate the most important social problems nowadays? Why they are not focusing their energies in solving xyz social problems instead?" That reality made me almost quit Computer Engineering 2 years ago.
---------------------------
Thursday, September 3, 2009
Readings of Aug 28 - Sept 3, Noddings 1-4
These are the August 28-September 3 reflections and commentaries of Noddings, Chapter 1-4. My apologize for not writing them yesterday:
/////////////////////////
For me, these readings were an introduction to several philosophical lines of thinking. Some of them were already discussed in a previous undergraduate class I took, however due to the time lapse, I forgot some of the main fundamentals of their thinking.
In this post I basically share which of the philosophers and philosophical movements I found out to be compatible with my actual line of thinking and which one, partially, did not agree with.
Of the short descriptions the author gave about the different philosophers, I was drawn more to Freire, Giroux, and Sartre. Freire, because of the emphasis in educating the newly literate people about the different forms of oppressions that are being (or were) imposed to their group. His concern in educating the oppressed group, to have a knowledge and awareness of the way dominant groups try to abuse their own literacy, should be a mandatory part of their new literate condition. By this, we intent to prevent more oppression and abuse of power. Giroux, because of the emphasis he places in the importance of learning to ask questions, engage in objective criticism, analyze, and resolve problem. More than reading and writing, those skills have more weight to prevent more oppression. Both authors are under the Critical Theory philosophy.
Of the philosophical thought of Sartre, first, I like his emphasis in the responsibility that humans must have for their own existence, which also translates to the responsibility that each individual human being has with the rest of the humans. We are living in an interdependent world, so every action we make, somehow will affect the collective. Second, his belief that "man is nothing else but what he makes of himself (...) there is nothing in heaven; man will be what he planned to be. Not what he will want to be", is a mirror of his emphasis on the responsibility of humans to their own destiny and transformation. This philosopher is categorized under the Existentialism movement.
Of Dewey, it impressed me his definition of democracy to be a "shared process of inquiry", as Noddings discussed. I always have had the vision of democracy as a governmental system. I agree that an "isolationist society" has the risk of losing its democracy, because of the losing of the free contacts between people and the "opportunities to inquire beyond its own borders" [Noddings, p. 37]. I ask myself whether the term "isolationist society" refers to the isolation experimented from one person to another, among the limits of his/her own society; or if it's related to the isolation that one entire country can experiment from the rest of the other countries. If Dewey would be alive today, would he consider his own society nowadays to be "isolationist"?
About Socrates, I don't agree completely in his teaching methodology because it preoccupies me that sensitive students can get intimidated and can "close themselves" when they perceive that a teacher is being too arrogant, sarcastic, and imposing his or her own ideas as the "ideal ideas". But certainly, I agree with his thought that "we are our own participants of our creation".
Finally, I'm starting to express my opinions, in a more frequent manner. It was only in the few Humanities courses taken, that I had to express and support my point of views. I have to admit that, I am overcoming little by little the fear of being rejected because of my opinions (perhaps is a common issue of my gender). During ALL my entire academic life, I "survived the coursework" handling it completely alone, without relatively few tasks that needed to express my opinions. Usually, it is seen that you don't have to express your opinions in technical courses. :-)
Thanks for your attention.
/////////////////////////
For me, these readings were an introduction to several philosophical lines of thinking. Some of them were already discussed in a previous undergraduate class I took, however due to the time lapse, I forgot some of the main fundamentals of their thinking.
In this post I basically share which of the philosophers and philosophical movements I found out to be compatible with my actual line of thinking and which one, partially, did not agree with.
Of the short descriptions the author gave about the different philosophers, I was drawn more to Freire, Giroux, and Sartre. Freire, because of the emphasis in educating the newly literate people about the different forms of oppressions that are being (or were) imposed to their group. His concern in educating the oppressed group, to have a knowledge and awareness of the way dominant groups try to abuse their own literacy, should be a mandatory part of their new literate condition. By this, we intent to prevent more oppression and abuse of power. Giroux, because of the emphasis he places in the importance of learning to ask questions, engage in objective criticism, analyze, and resolve problem. More than reading and writing, those skills have more weight to prevent more oppression. Both authors are under the Critical Theory philosophy.
Of the philosophical thought of Sartre, first, I like his emphasis in the responsibility that humans must have for their own existence, which also translates to the responsibility that each individual human being has with the rest of the humans. We are living in an interdependent world, so every action we make, somehow will affect the collective. Second, his belief that "man is nothing else but what he makes of himself (...) there is nothing in heaven; man will be what he planned to be. Not what he will want to be", is a mirror of his emphasis on the responsibility of humans to their own destiny and transformation. This philosopher is categorized under the Existentialism movement.
Of Dewey, it impressed me his definition of democracy to be a "shared process of inquiry", as Noddings discussed. I always have had the vision of democracy as a governmental system. I agree that an "isolationist society" has the risk of losing its democracy, because of the losing of the free contacts between people and the "opportunities to inquire beyond its own borders" [Noddings, p. 37]. I ask myself whether the term "isolationist society" refers to the isolation experimented from one person to another, among the limits of his/her own society; or if it's related to the isolation that one entire country can experiment from the rest of the other countries. If Dewey would be alive today, would he consider his own society nowadays to be "isolationist"?
About Socrates, I don't agree completely in his teaching methodology because it preoccupies me that sensitive students can get intimidated and can "close themselves" when they perceive that a teacher is being too arrogant, sarcastic, and imposing his or her own ideas as the "ideal ideas". But certainly, I agree with his thought that "we are our own participants of our creation".
Finally, I'm starting to express my opinions, in a more frequent manner. It was only in the few Humanities courses taken, that I had to express and support my point of views. I have to admit that, I am overcoming little by little the fear of being rejected because of my opinions (perhaps is a common issue of my gender). During ALL my entire academic life, I "survived the coursework" handling it completely alone, without relatively few tasks that needed to express my opinions. Usually, it is seen that you don't have to express your opinions in technical courses. :-)
Thanks for your attention.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
