- — Jacob Berg (@jacobsberg)Thu, Jul 25 2013 19:08:15Blogged @ BeerBrarian: More Thoughts on New Librarianship, Weeks 2-3: Bia... http://beerbrarian.blogspot.com/2013/07/more-thoughts-on-new-librarianship.html?spref=tw …omlibrariesmonewlib#libraries #newlib
- — Karim B Boughida (@kboughida)Thu, Jul 25 2013 20:04:21
- — Karim B Boughida (@kboughida)Thu, Jul 25 2013 20:08:13
- Gee is partially correct about my assumptions here. I think that Conversation Theory, as deployed here, is a form of Critical Theory, one that is post-Marxist in that it seeks to explain why Marx was wrong, yet continuing to assert that economics drives politics, as well as the role of dialectical materialism.
- — L. Gee (@growwords)Fri, Jul 26 2013 00:07:32@jacobsberg Conversation theory is not "critical theory." It's a scientific theory that explains how interaction results in knowledge. (2/3)
- — Jacob Berg (@jacobsberg)Fri, Jul 26 2013 00:16:55@growwords There's a lot more Habermas than Durkheim in at least Lankes' version of CT. Strikes me as critical, as deployed here.
- That is, if Conversation Theory is scientific, it can be falsified rather easily. See this, from Lane, for example. We can use Karl Popper's standards here, or wait for someone to defend the Lakatosian "hard core" of Conversation Theory. Gee is right that if it is critical, it cannot be falsified, by definition.
- — L. Gee (@growwords)Fri, Jul 26 2013 00:38:23@jacobsberg You may be leaping ahead. Go ahead and show how and I'll respond when I see your argument. Couldn't post to yr blog earlier tho.
- — L. Gee (@growwords)Fri, Jul 26 2013 00:44:32
- — R. David Lankes (@rdlankes)Fri, Jul 26 2013 01:35:21
- — Lane Wilkinson (@librarianwilk)Fri, Jul 26 2013 01:42:09
#Newlib, CT, & Bias
R. David Lankes New Librarianship MOOC, Conversation Theory, and Bias.
byJacob Berg52 Views