Philosophy 101 Unit 1

So I don’t know about you guys, but upon completion of On the Internet, I’m rather convinced by many of his arguments. I think it’s interesting that he cites various people that were convinced that differing forms of technology would replace the chalkboard and textbooks in the classroom. We still have chalkboards and textbooks for many of our classes. I believe what he says about the fact that the technological classroom can’t (for the time being) replace the experience of being seated in a lecture. In order to truly learn something, beyond the plug and chug degree, we need to have hands on access to the material. In addition, there are times during a lecture that a question arises. Since we are seated in class, we can ask the question when it is relevant and on the tip of our tongues. Asking questions post lecture/via e-mail just doesn’t fulfill that same need. Without a doubt, technology enhances the learning experience, but cannot replace it all together. You all are familiar with smartboards and even simple projectors or lazer pointers. Even microphones help with a sizable lecture. I never considered the perspective that Dreyfus takes in explaining the importance of a classroom setting. Everything lies in the risk. This element motivates the students as well as the teacher. This also ensures that the teacher will adapt per the mood of the classroom to ensure that a majority of the students are engaged. Such adaptability is not possible with an online class. This same risk comes into play with general interactions online. A level of trust is necessary in any type of relationship. Online, there is no way to gain a sense of trust. Sometimes, this is even hard to establish face to face. I agree with Dreyfus that communication involves much more than just verbal language. Gestures, intonations, expressions, and especially body language reports much more than mere words can tell. Spending a few days in a closed environment with a business associate is a good way to determine their integrity. Though, sometimes even with this people fail to distinguish whether or not they can really trust someone.

On page 21, Dreyfus claims that it’s important to acknowledge the importance of our bodies in making sense of the world. He cites that “our form of life is organized by and for beings embodied like us….that move forward more easily than backwards; that get tired…” I believe that this is a faulty argument against AI robots of sorts. I know that he’s harping on the notion that we can’t rely on machines to do the work that only humans have an understanding of, but what if we could program machines to accurately catalog and database everything on the internet per relevance? Isn’t it a good thing that robots don’t get tired? that they don’t act like humans in terms of our deficiencies?

What do you guys think about Dreyfus? Are you moderately convinced?

            Distance learning.  It feels more and more like a philosophy class when one must clarify the terminology involved in any question.  What is learning?  If we’re going to deconstruct what we know to be “education,” into a distant, media-based forum, then the definition and purpose of learning must be observed.

Online or correspondence courses sound great if their purpose is to learn a skill or specific, factually-based information. Learning something practical to put to use in the “real world” is a possibility with distance learning.  To a lesser extent, one could achieve the same goal by reading a book.  Maybe it’s easier to learn a skill (typing, gardening, simple algebra, locksmithing, etc.) with a teacher to help, but it’s not impossible to do it on one’s own.  Even learning the principles and details of certain subjects (history, grammar, languages) is possible without the traditional classroom atmosphere.  But can analysis happen?  Can one synthesize information in a vacuum, even if that vacuum contains all the world’s knowledge at one’s fingertips?  If education were all about vocation, then we wouldn’t bother with classes grounded in the liberal arts.  Distance learning can only accomplish specifics, it has no precedence over the realm of holistics.  It cannot make well-rounded students, much less well-rounded human beings.

It makes sense to have some sort of hybrid blend in teaching styles.  Just because we have the technology doesn’t mean it’s the best option in every situation.  But there’s also no reason for us to go Luddite and return to one-room schoolhouses and individual chalk boards.  Obviously what we talk about in class is all theory, but to talk about the internet like it’s the be-all and end-all of our lives is absurd.  We should work to separate ourselves from its all-encompassing nature.  Just because it’s big and just because it’s there (everywhere, that is) doesn’t mean it should dictate our lives.

I realize the argument goes down a slippery slope, but if being with other people doesn’t matter in the context of school and learning, then where does it matter?  Friendships can occur over the internet, dating as well.  What about family? Long distance family?  We don’t technically need companionship to ensure human survival, since we have sperm banks, right?  And if people are already looking into simulating sex, then we don’t need to be with others for pleasure, either.  But all these possibilities for us, as “cyborgs,” don’t take into account all the psychological studies about companionship.  Babies who aren’t touched don’t develop as fast or as wholly as babies who are touched.  What about the monkey who chose the surrogate mother made of cloth instead of the surrogate mother made of wire, even though the latter was dispensing milk?  While Dreyfus may make some claims that can’t be verified, Clark seems to ignore a lot of the facts that make us human.  He sees only the parts of humanity that can prove his theory.  The fact of the matter is that humans do need companionship, and no matter how much we utilize outside tools, no matter how much everything can be considered a tool, no one can survive without other people.