[Air-l] Definitions

[Sam Tilden]

My intent in the original thread was the widest possible use of the word in order to embrace the level of informed scholarship in the discussion of the definition of the internet. It was intended as a complement to all participants.
   
  I was proud to be part of such a discourse and wanted to complement all. The use of scientists was just that.
   
  I'm not sure how it got marginalized to somehow be negative. That was certainly not my intent.
   
  Pax Electronica
   
  Sam

Alex Halavais <halavais at gmail.com> wrote:
  'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,'
it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

Definitions are an important and useful part of making an argument.
That said, as we have seen with other discussions on this list, they
are inherently slippery. I'm wondering, at this point, what the point
here is; why is it particularly important that we share an
understanding of what science is?

One of the streams of this discussion (I'll admit that I have not
attended to all of the responses) has to do with whether AIR was an
organization strictly of "scientists," and who counts as a scientist.
I do think that there tends to be some feeling that the closer you
fall to the natural sciences--biology, (empirical) physics, etc.--the
more "scientific" you are. While some forms of qualitative research
are certainly employed by people who tend to call themselves "social
scientists" (e.g., interview, etc.), others generally are not (e.g.,
participant observation).

As a practical matter, I suspect that many AIR members would not
self-identify as "scientists." While I tend toward the social
sciences, I'm ambivalent as to whether the work I do is "science." I
do believe it is "research" and "scholarship." It includes informed (I
hope!), though not necessarily replicable opinion and interpretation.
It also includes making stuff: things that might be termed either
"test aparatus" or "art" or "toys," depending on perspective.

Many people who consider themselves scientists appreciate and value
the work of other scholars, and many non-scientific researchers value
and appreciate the work of scientists. The best of both are reflexive
about their own process of understanding as well as others'
approaches. This mutual respect the surest way to dismantle CP Snow's
divide.

I think the line between "internet anythings" and "internet scholars,"
is a questions of consensus, no more or less--an idea that should
appeal to a particular brand of "scientist" among us.

Alex Halavais
Assistant Internet Anything
Random Institute of Medium Education
Anywhere


On 10/18/06, Sam Tilden wrote:
> I am doing no such thing.
>
> The term scientist was invented (a hypothetical construct) in 1833. Prior to that all scholars were "philosophers" and people who investigated physics, chemistry etc. were "natural philosophers". That is why the terminal degree is a doctorate of philosopy. People who write about and make discourse about a subject are fundamentally different than people who are practitioners of that subject. That is unless they use the methods of rigid scholarship to investigate the basic principles of the subject.
>
> A scientist in the sense of this explanation can come from any discipline as long as the intent is to uncover basic understanding by an orderly process.
>


-- 


--
//
// This email is
// [X] assumed public and may be blogged / forwarded.
// [ ] assumed to be private, please ask before redistributing.
//
// Alexander C. Halavais
// Social Architect
// http://alex.halavais.net
//
_______________________________________________
The air-l at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: 
http://www.aoir.org/


 				
---------------------------------
Get your own web address for just $1.99/1st yr. We'll help. Yahoo! Small Business.