Re-humanizing Information Processing

 “The possession of knowledge does not kill the sense of wonder and mystery. There is always more mystery.” ― Anaïs Nin

There's an interesting article on Slate today called "Explain It to Me Again, Computer," written by author Samuel Arbesman, an "applied mathematician and network scientist."  Those aren't sarcasm quotes, by the way; it's how he describes himself.  But I have to say, this article makes me wonder if he isn't too focused on computer networks, overlooking the human informational networks that lead to the discoveries he talks about.

"I'm sorry, Dave.  I can't let you read that."

Basically, Arbesman states that computers can do calculations, data mine for associations, and combine vast amounts of information in far greater complexity than any human is able.  Given the enormous quantities of scientific research, it can be extremely difficult for people to make connections between disparate pieces of research.  Theoretically, a computer might assemble a piece of scientific truth that combines research that no one has thought to combine before.  As such, it may find a truth that no one person comprehends.  From there, one assumes, it's merely a few steps to sentience and world domination, and we'll never even know it happened.  I, for one, welcome our new machine scientist overlords.

My disagreement with Arbesman is that this constitutes something we "can't understand."  Knowledge isn't binary, locked in a single head.  Knowledge, especially as expressed in science, is a collective experience.  So while no one person might understand the whole of this new scientific truth, perhaps humanity as a whole can, and eventually that will get synthesized down into something more easily understood by (extremely knowledgeable expert) individuals.  The principle of collaborative learning is based on this very idea, that a group can construct a model of understanding, using the variety of existing knowledge and experience, that is greater than any individual can manage.

To digress momentarily from the subject of this evening's symposium (with apologies to Tom Lehrer for nicking his joke), how does this have anything to do with pop culture?  I suppose I could blame collaborative "learning" (and those ARE sarcasm quotes this time) on the acceptance of really awful music making it more likely to occur, but that's not quite what I have in mind.  Actually, as I'm typing this, I'm not really sure what I DO have in mind, so this will be an adventure for all of us.

This one is 103% true.

Okay, got it.  Movies.  We love them, right?  Sure we do.  However, I'm guessing some of you teachers feel a bit of dread whenever you see the words "based on a true story" in the titles.  Especially if it's something of actual historical or cultural significance.  Take, for example, the recent Steven Spielberg movie "Lincoln."  Most people seemed pleased overall with the film, but the Connecticut Representative Jim Courtney took issue with its incorrect depiction of the Connecticut congressmen voting against the 13th Amendment, essentially supporting slavery.  Whether you see it as an insult, or simply write it off as storytelling license, in either case it's factually incorrect.  There are numerous depictions of Lincoln in movies about his life, or about the Civil War.  It would be a labor of lunacy for one person to try to watch every movie with Lincoln in it and cross reference them for factual and non-factual claims.  But a class of students, taking them on either individually or in small groups, could compile that list much easier.  Once that's done, you have them share what they've found, both true and false-but-believed-true, thereby building a collective portrait of your subject.

The range of historical events and persons depicted in books, comics, movies, video/board games is expansive, so you  can be teaching most any subject and still be able to do this.  Yes, even Math.  Maybe our kids will use that collaborative learning to learn not only about their topic, but maybe a bit of critical thinking savvy when it comes to learning from the movies.  If I can stop just one book report from talking about Mozart's second career as a rock star in 80s, I'll consider it a rousing success.