Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 13, No. 427.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
<http://www.princeton.edu/~mccarty/humanist/>
<http://www.kcl.ac.uk/humanities/cch/humanist/>
[1] From: "Malcolm Hayward, English, IUP, Indiana PA 15705" (20)
<MHAYWARD@grove.iup.edu>
Subject: Re: 13.0423 what we need: a provocation
[2] From: "Norman D. Hinton" <hinton@springnet1.com> (29)
Subject: Re: 13.0423 what we need: a provocation
--[1]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 06:55:28 +0000
From: "Malcolm Hayward, English, IUP, Indiana PA 15705"
<MHAYWARD@grove.iup.edu>
Subject: Re: 13.0423 what we need: a provocation
I absolutely think a tool-box and set of manuals for the
use of those tools should be high up on our list of priorities
for our discipline. To comment on the "limitations of
the tools we need to outgrow," and to extend a metaphor,
you don't ever really outgrow a hammer and saw even when
you buy a power nailer and a circular saw: you just find
ways to accomplish the tasks you want to do more efficiently
and quickly. For example, last fall I used SPSS for windows
for the first time. Now I am sure others have been using that
for years, but for me it was like a revelation: the program was
brilliant and I did in 20 minutes what it used to take days
to do with writing those little programs on SPSS-X. No way
are we going to outgrow the need for statistical analyses.
Which makes me think: maybe the issue is not so much that we
need a new set of different tools, but that we need sets of
plans, suggestions, patterns and the like for better, more
imaginative use of the tools that are at hand. After all,
that hammer and saw can be used to build tables, chairs,
dressers, bookshelves, or, as I am going to build right now,
register covers for floor vents. Malcolm Hayward
--[2]------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2000 06:56:03 +0000
From: "Norman D. Hinton" <hinton@springnet1.com>
Subject: Re: 13.0423 what we need: a provocation
"Humanist Discussion Group (by way of Willard McCarty )" wrote:
> Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 08:15:18 +0000
> From: Willard McCarty <willard.mccarty@kcl.ac.uk>
> >
> Dear Colleagues:
>
> Of course if you think the criticism essentially or
> entirely correct, please say so. If you think it does not go far enough,
> then please extend it -- and if you wish anonymity for your stronger
> statement, I am certainly happy to arrange for that. We need ad laborem,
> not ad hominem strokes!
>
> Here is the lash:
>
> . Apart from lack of time and money,
> >these attempts have been flawed by seriously underestimating even the
> >sociologically ordinary difficulties in extracting ideas reliably from
> >actual practice.
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what on earth this sentence means or intends to
mean. What are "sociologically ordinary difficulties" ? The words don't even
seem made to go in the same phrase. And what is the 'actual (or even
'virtual') practice from which ideas are somehow extracted ? (and how does
one extract an idea ??) If I knew what it meant, I might respond to it.
> More specifically, they have not been framed to separate
> >the operations of scholarly research from habits formed by existing
> >software and so have boxed in the imaginations of those questioned by the
> >limitations of the tools we need to outgrow.
Where else does one get things except from things that already exist ? I know
the "outside the box/envelope" cliche's but they mean little or nothing. Does
the author really expect something new under the sun ?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 22 2000 - 07:10:13 CUT