The paradox of simultaneous standard uniformity and individual uniqueness Learning Diotima s lesson will require systematically combining standards and local exceptions to them. Philosophical reflections and social studies of science and technology addressing the multiple levels of complexity symbolized in language and information infrastructures become relevant here.
With no mention of how beauty teaches us to think about meaning, Scott (1998) proposes taking language as a model for institutions intended to improve the human condition. He is motivated to suggest this because language is, as Scott (1998, p. 357) says, a structure of meaning and continuity that is never still and ever open to the improvisations of its speakers."
Similarly, again with no mention of Diotima Star and Ruhleder (1996) point out that "The competing requirements of openness and malleability, coupled with structure and navigability, create a fascinating design challenge even a new science." The design of information infrastructures providing both structure and openness "is highly challenging technically, requiring new forms of computability that are both socially situated and abstract enough to travel across time and space (Star & Ruhleder, 1996, p. 132).
Levels of complexity in the language of education Denotative: statements about learning You answered these questions correctly and incorrectly. Your score on the test was a particular count of correct responses. Kidmap display Metalinguistic: learning about learning We observe a pattern of consistently increasing difficulty in items. Similar patterns of invariance emerge across assessments. Wright map display Metacommunicative: theories about learning We see item features that cause items to be easy or hard. We design tests from specifications, and they function as expected. Construct map display and construct specification equation
Mere agreement essential to the economy of thought based in standards that reveal exceptions Languages are shared systems of spoken and written symbols distributed in the networks through which we communicate via the mere agreements of words/things/concepts; and collectively access the anomalies and exceptions indicating new things ready for conceptual determination and representation in words. Art and science bring about new word/thing/concept assemblages more systematically and faster than in past traditional cultures. A full grasp of the processes through which those assemblages are created has been difficult to achieve.
Mere agreement essential to the economy of thought based in standards that reveal exceptions Latour (1987, pp. 249, 250): "Every time you hear about a successful application of a science, look for the progressive extension of a network. "The predictable character of technoscience is entirely dependent on its ability to spread networks further. But what kind of networks are we talking about?
Centralized, Decentralized, & Distributed Networks (Baran 1962, Figure 1) Positivist/Modern : Anti-Positivist/Postmodern : Post-Positivist/Unmodern Hempel/Carnap/Ayer : Kuhn/Toulmin/Wittgenstein : Latour/Nersessian/Dewey
Golinski, J. (2012). Is it time to forget science? Reflections on singular science and its history. Osiris, 27(1), 19-36. p. 35: "Practices of translation, replication, and metrology have taken the place of the universality that used to be assumed as an attribute of singular science. i.e., the centralized and decentralized networks of positivist modern and anti-positivist postmodern science have given way to the distributed networks of post-positivist unmodern science.
Positivist & Modern Sense of Science (Galison, 1997, p. 785)
Anti-Positivist & Postmodern View of Science (Galison, 1997, p. 794)
Post-Positivist & Unmodern/Amodern View of Science (Galison, 1997, p. 799)
Unity through Disunity It is the disorder of the scientific community the laminated, finite, partially independent strata supporting one another; it is the disunification of science the intercalation of different patterns of argument that is responsible for its strength and coherence (Galison, 1997, pp. 843-844).
Field-organizing activities take different forms depending on the positivist, anti-positivist, or postpositivist assumptions made about the field. Positivism s empiricist focus values centralized conformity to data, adapting theory to it; the role of instruments is largely undefined, and intelligent individuals and societies are assumed to conform to the facts. Anti-positivism s theoretical focus values decentralized local theory-data dialogues; again, instruments have little bearing, and individuals and societies different ways of dealing with facts are relativized in an unresolved polarity. Post-positivism s focus values mutual mediations of theory, data, and instruments coordinating convergent and divergent perspectives in distributed social networks explicitly mediated by linguistic technologies.
Theory, Data, & Instrument Assemblages (The Semiotic Triangle: Concept, Thing, & Word)
Concepts Organizations "In contrast to past research on scientific fields that has suggested convergence to be a desirable end (Kuhn 1996), we suggest that a spectrum of convergent, divergent, and reflective modes of thought may instead be a more appropriate indicator of collective intelligence and thus the healthy functioning of a scientific field." Woolley, A. W., & Fuchs, E. (2011, September-October). Collective intelligence in the organization of science. Organization Science, 22(5), 1359-1367.