<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Tom what Churchman pointed out was that different disciplines used different philosophies to determine what was evidence for a truth.<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">This is why many attempts and interdisciplinary work flounders.<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">An old classic example was the classic "club of Rome model" where the system dynamics professional and the economists could not communicate because they saw truth in different ways of Libenizean verses Lockean.<br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Early computing was very much a Leibnizian approach to truth using "equations" as truth with out any concern for the data. I think the transition to the future was the introduction of object oriented programming which was more Kantian in nature. Unix was the start of a transition.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Another old story (about Unix<br>The military took a version of Unix and made it a secure system that could handle classified data. They invited one of the two primary inventors of Unix to come in an test their system. It took him like sixty seconds because many years back he had built a back door to the system and never told anyone. It was still there in the secure military system. It was also in all the commercial system being used at that time. <br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Back doors were common practice by the builders of software in the early days so they could get in quickly to fix anything that was going wrong. This was before bugs became features.<br></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 21, 2015 at 3:59 PM, Thomas Haigh <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:thomas.haigh@gmail.com" target="_blank">thomas.haigh@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div>Thanks Bernard,</div><div><br></div><div>Looks like the discussion is moving in a productive discussion.</div><div><br></div><div>Matt, I didn't mean to lead a charge of virtuous historians against the infidels of English. Why, some of my best friends are English professors. The argument I was making was basically one about the social construction of scholarly knowledge, which is something you'll find STS scholars and historians of science and technology are often quite familiar with. I was struck that some on the list found the paper in question unequivocally terrible, whereas others thought it to be good enough to assign in class and thus make it something students might pattern their own narratives after.</div><div><br></div><div>I do believe that these judgments reflect the aesthetic preferences of different disciplinary communities. From a broadly Latourian perspective, we are all in the business of producing texts in which claims and evidence are strung together. We learn how to do this as grad students and junior faculty, and only those who can do it very well become tenured professors. These aesthetic preferences for one or another kind of narrative become thoroughly internalized. Papers that don't follow the rules won't get published and people who don't follow the rules won't get hired.</div><div><br></div><div>But the rules for are different in different disciplines and sub-disciplines. That's a feature, not a bug as otherwise we wouldn't need more that one discipline. In this case the games are like American Football and Rugby. There are some familial resemblances, but moves that would win points in one context would be called as fouls in another. Of course there are a range of permitted styles within communities, and Matt himself writes with admirable cogency and clarity even from my own viewpoint.</div><div><br></div><div>Abundant evidence suggests that McPherson is doing a fine job when her text is evaluated by members of her own disciplinary communities. She works at a much better university than me, her chapter made it into the DH volume, it has been assigned for courses, etc. So, in all probability, was the professor who gave the talk at Penn long ago. According to the standards of other communities their arguments had gone off the rails. To use Kuhn's term, the standards for truth and excellence are incommensurable. A paper that could be published in Social Text would not be publishable in Technology and Culture, or vice versa. It's not a case of caring or not caring about getting things right or being truthful, but the most fundamental idea of STS is that standards for truth and proof are socially constructed and differ between communities and traditions. If we believe that's true of Unix and the technical communities we study then we need to eat our own dog food and admit that it's true in our own disciplines and of own work.</div><div><br></div><div>This is something I have become very aware of with my personal shifts of disciplinary context from computer science to history/STS to information studies. While my personal preferences are fairly clear, spending my life in a school where few of my colleagues share my assumptions about what a paper should look like, what counts as evidence, etc. has made me much more aware of the parochial nature of my own preferred traditions. McPherson would doubtless see the kind of history I enjoy reading and try to write as plodding, woefully under theorized, blind to its own class and gender privilege, etc. and by her own standards she'd be quite right. One of the nice things about SIGCIS is that we bring a diversity of scholarly traditions together, in fact a broader range than our parent society SHOT.</div><div><br></div><div>Best wishes,</div><div><br></div><div>Tom</div><div><div class="h5"><div><br>On Aug 20, 2015, at 4:20 PM, Bernard Dionysius Geoghegan <<a href="mailto:bernard.geoghegan@hu-berlin.de" target="_blank">bernard.geoghegan@hu-berlin.de</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
Hi All,<br>
<br>
After Matthew threw in his two bits tom Tom's comments, I feel
compelled to add something too. Tom wrote:
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d">.
. . I’m trained in history, rather than English
or media studies. There’s a difference between the
kind of arguments that are allowed in the two
fields, specifically with respect to evidence and
claims about causation. Scholarship in English
tends to be more self-consciously performative,
and more concerned with joining up apparently
unconnected things in a provocative or original
way. I’m reminded of a workshop at Penn where Rob
Kohler asked a visiting English professor “How
would you know if an argument of this kind had
gone off the rails and fallen off the cliff?” His
suggestion was that you couldn’t, that the
aesthetic standards at work meant that almost any
connection of conclusion to evidence would be
equally valid. </span></p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
I'd put it a little differently, by saying that a stricter code of
what can be considered causality governs much (though not all)
academic historiography. The world is full of interrelations that
are quite important but slip through the grid of standard academic
historiography, which often favors certain kinds of narrative
causality, and in anglophone contexts especially, certain kinds of
intentionality or human agency, and so on. So I'd agree with Tom
that it's about different notions of evidence and causation.
However, because academic historiographic it's so bound up with
matching a certain set of professional codes, it's not actually
about "history" in the very first instance, but rather about shared
standards that we can work around to "write history." In this
regard, I think that sometimes adjacent fields -- sociology, media
studies, literary studies, philosophy, even literature -- can in
certain instances get closer to the messy interrelations that "make
history" or "are history," even though they are not the stuff of
"historiography" in its disciplinary, academic iteration. <br>
<br>
To take an example relevant to the UNIX case: I did an oral history
with an engineer who worked at Bell Labs from the 1950s through the
1970s, and he told me that working there was great, it was like a
sleepover camp, they frequently worked all night and over the
weekends. Then, he claimed, it all changed in the 1970s when they
started "hiring womens and foreigners." In his account, the social
life (I think Tom called it a "bromance" broke down. Not too long
after, UNIX started becoming a big deal in the Labs. What does this
mean? How do we map these interrelatedness of gender, race, and
communication engineering that is suggested here? It's damn hard.
Folks on this list such as Light, Medina, and Ensmenger have helped
us start mapping out those relations historiographically. And yet,
so much there will forever escape rigorous historiographic method.
Does that mean those relations cannot be considered? Or that they
cannot be considered empirically? Not at all, it seems to me. It
is probably helpful that some folks from English or media studies
can investigate these interrelations without worrying about the
models of causality that govern mainstream disciplinary approaches
to History. That's why so many of the major historiographic
innovations don't originate in academic history, but instead migrate
from other fields.<br>
<br>
In that regard, and like J. Abbate, I think the McPherson piece is a
wonderful provocation, an occasion to think further, and think
historiographically, about problems are difficult to think about
with established historiographic methods. (That's also why I like
this list so much --- its grab-bag methodological character!). <br>
<br>
Best,<br>
Bernard<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div link="blue" vlink="purple" lang="EN-US">
<div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1f497d"></span><br clear="all">
</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don't this is an especially helpful anecdote, other
than perhaps a very low-resolution snapshot of the general
embrace of indeterminacy that characterizes much of the
academic humanities. By contrast, and given that my
scholarly training is in English literature and that my
professional activities take the form of "media studies"
(including what we term book history, itself a form of
media studies in my view), I feel very comfortable in
asserting the following:<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>English professors (and media studies scholars) are
interested in being right in so far as what reasonable
people would understand getting their facts straight to
mean.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>English professors and media studies scholars are
interested in primary sources and the archival record.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>English professors and media studies scholars do not
think anything goes, that one point of view is just as
good as any other, or that it's all just, like, your
opinion anyway, man.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>I do think, as Tom, notes, that we are generally *more*
interested in close reading and the ambiguities and
sensitivities of language as evidence of historical
phenomena, and more willing to place pressure on seeming
contradictions or ambiguities which manifest at a
linguistic level as evidence of same; and that we are
generally more sympathetic to social constructivist (as
opposed to techno determinist) arguments. These are huge
sweeping statements of course, and my own intent is less
to throw down the gauntlet with any single one of them
than to offer a general corrective to the notion that the
difference between media or cultural or literary studies
on the one hand, and the work of an historian on the other
is that the one is concerned with getting it right and the
others just want to put on a good show.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>I don't think Tom really thinks that either, btw, but I
have been a little concerned to see it taken up as an
acceptable explanation for whatever shortcomings people
perceive to be at work in the essay that kicked off the
discussion. Disciplinary differences are very real to be
sure, but they can't be reduced to anecdote and
caricature.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best, Matt<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
-- <br>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Matthew Kirschenbaum<br>
Associate Professor of English<br>
Associate Director, Maryland Institute for Technology in
the Humanities (MITH)<br>
University of Maryland<br>
<a href="http://mkirschenbaum.net" target="_blank">http://mkirschenbaum.net</a>
or @mkirschenbaum on Twitter<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
This email is relayed from members at <a href="http://sigcis.org" target="_blank">sigcis.org</a>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at <a href="http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/" target="_blank">http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/</a> and you can change your subscription options at <a href="http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org" target="_blank">http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org</a></pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre cols="72">--
Dr. Bernard Dionysius Geoghegan
Institut für Kulturwissenschaft
Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin
<a href="http://www.bernardg.com" target="_blank">www.bernardg.com</a></pre>
</div></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><div><span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>This email is relayed from members at <a href="http://sigcis.org" target="_blank">sigcis.org</a>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at <a href="http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/" target="_blank">http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/</a> and you can change your subscription options at <a href="http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org" target="_blank">http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org</a></span></div></blockquote></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
This email is relayed from members at <a href="http://sigcis.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">sigcis.org</a>, the email discussion list of SHOT SIGCIS. Opinions expressed here are those of the member posting and are not reviewed, edited, or endorsed by SIGCIS. The list archives are at <a href="http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.sigcis.org/pipermail/members-sigcis.org/</a> and you can change your subscription options at <a href="http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.sigcis.org/listinfo.cgi/members-sigcis.org</a><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><b>please send messages to <a href="mailto:murray.turoff@gmail.com" target="_blank">murray.turoff@gmail.com</a> do not use @<a href="http://njit.edu" target="_blank">njit.edu</a> address<br><br>Distinguished Professor Emeritus<br>Information Systems, NJIT<br>homepage: <a href="http://is.njit.edu/turoff" target="_blank">http://is.njit.edu/turoff</a><br></b><br></div>
</div>