ethnography and information systems

[Michael Agar]

Ray's topic suggestions are good ones. Steve and I talked some about
another angle, applying the Sapir-Whorf hypthesis from ling anthro (that
language and habitual patterns of thought co-evolve) to "speakers" of
different computer languages and seeing how that plays out in project
teams.

I don't know this territory as well as I should, given my new life as a
planet in the FRIAM orbit, but from colleagues' stories way back when
I'm pretty sure the human/machine interface emphasis came out of the
pioneering use of ethnographers at Xerox PARC together with the infuence
of Latour's theories that technology must also be viewed as an actor in
a situation. John Seely Brown, the PARC-man who made this happen, tells
some of the stories in his book the Social Life of Information,
co-authored with Paul Duguid.

Mike


In a message dated 1/4/2005 2:15:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, "Raymond
C. Parks" <[hidden email]> writes:

>Tom Johnson wrote:
>
>> All:
>>
>> At some point Friday past the discussion turned briefly to
ethnography
>> and information systems.  I had recently seen the following citation
>> and  attach the appropriate paper.
>>
>> *Ethnography of Information Systems -- Course Syllabus* paper
>> <PAPERS/STAR/LIS450EI.PDF>
>
>   Looking at the attached syllabus reminded me of computer science
>coursework in systems analysis.  The emphasis on human-machine
interface
>and cybernetics doesn't seem to be ethnography, in either the
>traditional or expanded sense (from Mike Agar's encyclopedia article).
>
>   I would have thought the coursework would include more emphasis on
>the various cultures (traditional ethnography) of the cyber domain as
>well as subjects such as the problem of how a systems analyst
interprets
>user requirements through personal filters (expanded sense of
ethnography).

>
>--
>Ray Parks                   [hidden email]
>IDART Project Lead          Voice:505-844-4024
>IORTA Department            Fax:[phone]
>http://www.sandia.gov/idart Pager:800-690-5288
>
>
>============================================================
>FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
>Meets Fridays 9AM @ Jane's Cafe
>Lecture schedule, archives, unsubscribe, etc.:
>http://www.friam.org
>

[jon zingale]

When McWhorter came to the Lensic on one of his tours, he made a rhetorically
powerful argument against the Whorfian hypothesis in natural languages. I
now tend to side with him, even though I cannot really remember the
structure of his argument. On the other hand, SteveS makes a great point
regarding translations of programs between languages. Barry's comment also,
for me, rings true. Perhaps, a kernel of the programmer's first language is
to be found in all future writing. Computer languages, unlike Athena, do not
come fully formed from the head. The state of the art continues to be under
radical development and is not just engaged in an empty proliferation of
simulacra. The work of logicians and philosophers, each with a stake in the
development of human thinking itself, continue to help move the art forward.
The ideas of Categorical logicians continue to develop languages like
Haskell, and those (academic) ideas continue to direct and further refine
the development of otherwise sprawling spaghetti monster languages like
javascript (React, for instance). The work of homotopy type theorists
continues to improve our understanding of automatic proof, the reasonability
of mathematical objects, and refinement of philosophically useful notions
like dependent typing (Agda, Coq, Isabelle). The interactions here are rich
and not unidirectional. The ideas being developed are meaningful to the
state-of-the-art and not just more FORTRAN. While it might be true that
Alonzo Church gave us computation, there is still much to be discovered.



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[Frank Wimberly-2]

My first language was Algol (1965), second was Fortran during a summer job that year.  After that Lisp,  C, Pascal (which I taught without having used it before), then Java, Java, Java.  The Algol beginning was very valuable.

On Sat, Aug 8, 2020, 11:00 AM jon zingale <[hidden email]> wrote:

When McWhorter came to the Lensic on one of his tours, he made a rhetorically
powerful argument against the Whorfian hypothesis in natural languages. I
now tend to side with him, even though I cannot really remember the
structure of his argument. On the other hand, SteveS makes a great point
regarding translations of programs between languages. Barry's comment also,
for me, rings true. Perhaps, a kernel of the programmer's first language is
to be found in all future writing. Computer languages, unlike Athena, do not
come fully formed from the head. The state of the art continues to be under
radical development and is not just engaged in an empty proliferation of
simulacra. The work of logicians and philosophers, each with a stake in the
development of human thinking itself, continue to help move the art forward.
The ideas of Categorical logicians continue to develop languages like
Haskell, and those (academic) ideas continue to direct and further refine
the development of otherwise sprawling spaghetti monster languages like
javascript (React, for instance). The work of homotopy type theorists
continues to improve our understanding of automatic proof, the reasonability
of mathematical objects, and refinement of philosophically useful notions
like dependent typing (Agda, Coq, Isabelle). The interactions here are rich
and not unidirectional. The ideas being developed are meaningful to the
state-of-the-art and not just more FORTRAN. While it might be true that
Alonzo Church gave us computation, there is still much to be discovered.



--
Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 

[Prof David West]

McWhorter's book The Language Hoax,  

https://www.amazon.com/Language-Hoax-John-H-McWhorter/dp/0190468890/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2BA5K37IW5TDI&dchild=1&keywords=the+language+hoax+why+the+world+looks+the+same+in+any+language&qid=1596907103&sprefix=the+language+hoax%2Caps%2C293&sr=8-1 

clearly outlines the case against Whorf-Sapir. The problem — it demolishes a straw man not what Whorf-Sapir actually claimed. Interestingly, McWhorter often uses precisely what Whorf claimed in his arguments against Whorf. When I read the book I spent equal amounts of time laughing and being enraged.

davew



On Sat, Aug 8, 2020, at 11:00 AM, jon zingale wrote:

> When McWhorter came to the Lensic on one of his tours, he made a rhetorically
> powerful argument against the Whorfian hypothesis in natural languages. I
> now tend to side with him, even though I cannot really remember the
> structure of his argument. On the other hand, SteveS makes a great point
> regarding translations of programs between languages. Barry's comment also,
> for me, rings true. Perhaps, a kernel of the programmer's first language is
> to be found in all future writing. Computer languages, unlike Athena, do not
> come fully formed from the head. The state of the art continues to be under
> radical development and is not just engaged in an empty proliferation of
> simulacra. The work of logicians and philosophers, each with a stake in the
> development of human thinking itself, continue to help move the art forward.
> The ideas of Categorical logicians continue to develop languages like
> Haskell, and those (academic) ideas continue to direct and further refine
> the development of otherwise sprawling spaghetti monster languages like
> javascript (React, for instance). The work of homotopy type theorists
> continues to improve our understanding of automatic proof, the reasonability
> of mathematical objects, and refinement of philosophically useful notions
> like dependent typing (Agda, Coq, Isabelle). The interactions here are rich
> and not unidirectional. The ideas being developed are meaningful to the
> state-of-the-art and not just more FORTRAN. While it might be true that
> Alonzo Church gave us computation, there is still much to be discovered.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
>
> - .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
>

- .... . -..-. . -. -.. -..-. .. ... -..-. .... . .-. .
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
un/subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/