5.0176 Computing: $$ and Sense; Privacy (3/51)

Elaine Brennan & Allen Renear (EDITORS@BROWNVM.BITNET)
Fri, 21 Jun 91 16:43:45 EDT

Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 5, No. 0176. Friday, 21 Jun 1991.


(1) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 13:55:11 PDT (15 lines)
From: cbf@athena.berkeley.edu (Charles Faulhaber)
Subject: Re: 5.0166 Why Prove Computers Do It Better?

(2) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1991 19:59:14 -0400 (21 lines)
From: mccarty@epas.utoronto.ca (Willard McCarty)
Subject: chit-chat

(3) Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1991 20:06:33 -0400 (15 lines)
From: mccarty@epas.utoronto.ca (Willard McCarty)
Subject: why prove computers do it better?

(1) --------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 91 13:55:11 PDT
From: cbf@athena.berkeley.edu (Charles Faulhaber)
Subject: Re: 5.0166 Why Prove Computers Do It Better?

The reason that people are interested in proving that
CAI is better is because computers are EXPENSIVE, and
supporting them in the fashion to which we would all
like to become accustomed is even (I originally slipped
and wrote "ever", which is also true) more expensive.

Deans and provosts tend to look askance at requests to
pour more and more money into a bottomless pit.

Charles Faulhaber
UC Berkeley
(2) --------------------------------------------------------------36----
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1991 19:59:14 -0400
From: mccarty@epas.utoronto.ca (Willard McCarty)
Subject: chit-chat

Dana Cartwright's response to Graham White's note about use of e-mail
declares that it is best used for "chit-chat", not for things of
importance. While in paranoid moments I agree with Norman Z. Shapiro
and Robert H. Anderson that one should never write anything by e-mail
one would not be comfortable with seeing on the front page of the New York
Times (_Towards an Ethics and Etiquette for Electronic Mail_), I
think we may be in danger of confusing what is IMPORTANT with what is
politically sensitive. Who here would argue openly that the value of
dialogue is proportional to its political sensitivity? Doesn't such an
argument measure the degree of tyranny under which one is forced to
live or which one constructs for oneself? On the other hand, our
cultural traditions teach us that those who are closest to the truth
are the most offensive to those who maintain the settled order of things.


Willard McCarty

(3) --------------------------------------------------------------30----
Date: Thu, 20 Jun 1991 20:06:33 -0400
From: mccarty@epas.utoronto.ca (Willard McCarty)
Subject: why prove computers do it better?

Dana Paramskas sensibly asks, in response to my note, why we have to
prove that computers demonstrably improve instruction. The simple
answer is that the people who have to pay for the installation,
support, and maintenance of computerized labs are worried about
justifying the not inconsiderable expense. Personally I don't think
there is any proof. There are, however, good arguments. Let them
commence, here on Humanist.


Willard McCarty