The Loving Resistance Fighter

I must say, Postman almost redeemed himeslf in this final chapter, and after all his pessimism, I appreciated that he gave a semblance of solution to all the problems he had outlined previously.  I enjoyed the term "loving resistance fighter" and although I don't think Postman would agree, his solution is what makes Christian education exciting.  As Christian educators we do have the responsibility to our youth "to give them a sense of coherence in their studies, a sense of purpose, meaning, and interconnectedness in what they learn," (186) and although Postman would not agree, this is not possible without showing students that God, the creator, is the one who is responsible for that meaning and interconnectedness.  It was almost humorous to me that Postman had to admit that "the Biblical version of creation, to the astonishment of everyone except possibly the fundamentalists, has turned out to be a near-perfect blend of artistic imagination and scientific intuition" (187).  I have never considered myself a fundamentalist, but for just this one time I think I am happy to join that circle. 
I appreciated Postman's closing remarks on the last two pages of his book, and I agree with his statement, "we need students who will understand the relationships between our technics and our social and psychic worlds, so that they may begin informed conversations about where technology is taking us and how."  It is our responsibility as Christian educators to continually bring Christ into that conversation so that students have a firm foundation on which to base their thinking.
I am wondering if our schools have the courage to really ask the tough questions and to get our students thinking -- when to do so is often very counter cultural and requires taking a firm, but loving stand (kind of like that "loving, resistance fighter")?

Social "Scientists" more Prevalent Than We'd Like to Admit!

Although I don't usually find myself agreeing with Postman, I think he made some good points in the chapter on scientism.  I found myself grinning when he was mentioning the almost ridiculous research that some "scientists" are involved in.  I know that sometimes when I watch the news, I will often be astounded by the massive amounts of money that went into huge studies that have the most basic of results.  If they had only asked me before they did all that expensive research, I could have saved them a lot of time and money!!!  And I couldn't help but agree with his statement, "That is why social "scientists" are so often to be found on our television screens, and on our best-seller lists, and in the 'self-help' sections of some airport bookstands:  not because they can tell us how some humans sometimes behave but because they can purport to tell us how we should; not because they speak to us as fellow humans who have lived longer, or experienced more of human suffering, or thought more deeply and reasoned more carefully about some set of problems, but because they consent to maintain the illusion that it is their data, their procedures, their science, and not themselves that speak."  The very sad state that this points to is that people are searching in all the wrong places for the wisdom and the moral judgement they so desperately seek.  If people knew the true source of wisdom and the ultimate authority (GOD), they wouldn't need the social scientists to aid them in their journey. 
But I wonder if technology is to blame for this?  And don't I see Christian bookstores lined with self-help books?  Why is that?  Is the state of technopoloy so strong, that it has infilitrated our Christian circles without us realizing it?  I think that is my burning question for the day!

Metaphor Making and Small Talk in the Staff Room

It was interesting to read A Whole New Mind and Technopoly in the same day and even more interesting that both authors  referred to metaphors.  Metaphor -- understanding one thing in terms of something else-- is an important part of creating symphony according to Pink.   And yet Postman almost seems to imply that the metaphor of the machine as human is a negative thing, or at least one he resents.  It was amazing me to realize how many metaphors we use when comparing computers to people or something alive:

• people programming or deprogramming themselves
• our brains as a piece of "hard wiring" capable of "retrieving data"
• a "virus" that makes computers sick, which can be "virulent" and "contagious"
• "worms" which attack computers
• computers which become "infected" and may need to be "quarantined" or "sterilized"
• programmers who needed to develop "vaccines" so that computers could be "inoculated

If I didn't know better, I would think computers had become things of life and could think and have meaning for themselves. In fact, I think we are sometimes guilty of that.  We do stop thinking and give the computer way too much credit.  We have all heard the statement, "the computer shows" or "the computer has determined, although I am not prepared to give those statements the same credibility as "It is God's will."  One of my questions this week this is this:  Are we still guilty of creating the computer as human, or worse yet, as God, or have we moved past that and realized its fallibility and its shortcomings? 

My other questions is this:  I wondered if Postman was correct when he stated, "There are, for example, no 'great computerers,' as there are great writers, painters, or musicians.  There are 'great programs' and great programmers,' but their greatness lies in their ingenuity either in simulating a human function or in creating new possibilities of calculation, speed, and volume."  Would Postman and Pink also argue about this?  Is Postman lessening the importance of right brain thinking? 

Well enough questions for one post!  Actually I have one more question, which is actually probably just a pet peeve of mine.  On page 137 Postman writes, "There seems to be a market for useless information. . . . It is surprising how frequently such blather will serve as the backbone of conversations which are essentially meaningless."  As I read that I couldn't help think of most of the conversations that happen during coffee time or lunch time in our staff room.  I must admit, small talk is not my forte, but it seems that as educators we should be able to get past the "blather" that often makes up the bulk of our conversations.  Does this irritate anyone else, or is there something wrong with me?