Chance:
Thanks -- I want to work my way "up to" McLuhan with this group by way
of Julian Jaynes and Merlin Donald, if that's okay.
First we need to sort through the psychological implications of
"speech" and "literacy" as the earliest communications "technologies"
(i.e. had to be *recently* invented and have no "evolutionary" value.)
All of which I hope to launch into once Gregg gets back from vacation,
so that I'm not competing with his family for attention.
My Center is pretty-much the only place where McLuhan is taken
"seriously" nowadays -- which is why his son Eric and grandson Andrew
(who have the responsibility for keeping the plates spinning for the
family) were (he just died, I'd been working with him since the 90s)
and still are Fellows at the Center.
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__mcluhangalaxy.wordpress.com_2018_05_19_remembering-2Deric-2Dmcluhan-2D1942-2D2018_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=9z420JytmNnYuQrJhirddCdsal9Dpp06fbVXP3K6IY8&s=XmEXEEVII0DSpJChurB9O9J2BLmviOT-6A_SU487UU4&e=
Much more to come . . . !!
Mark
Quoting Chance McDermott <[log in to unmask]>:
> Mark,
>
> I am curious to learn more about your Center and for the future
> dialogues about digital media. Thank you for your links,
> commentary, and sources.
>
> I was excited to see you mention Marshal McLuhan as an important
> source. His awareness that the “medium” was more transformative
> than content (the message) is, I believe, one of the fundamental
> missing pieces of our collective dialogue about our lived experiences.
>
> Medium literacy, and not only media literacy, seems vital for a
> fuller perspective.
>
> -chance
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
>> On Jul 3, 2018, at 7:59 AM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> Dear Waldemar and ToKers, I wanted to reply to Waldemar's list of
>> human attributes that a computer cannot emulate:
>>
>> 1. Processing & relationship discovery.
>> 2. Reasoning & the discovery of patterns.
>> 3. The application of principles, empathy, and beliefs.
>> 4. The application of values and desire.
>> 5. The application of commitment.
>>
>> My biased view from many many years of reductionist
>> science/biology/evolution theory is that those attributes are
>> the net result of the literal endogenization of the external
>> environment by the cell. The best known example
>> is the mitochondrion, which evolved from cohabitation with
>> bacteria, but there are many other such
>> examples in the evolution of physiology. The other aspect of this
>> process of evolution is that the organism must have a memory
>> that allows it to recall circumstances in its past in order to
>> solve emerging environmental problems it is challenged
>> by, because all such evolved 'novelties' are due to repurposing of
>> old genes for new structures and functions, which
>> Stephen J. Gould termed exaptations. The reason I mention all of
>> this is because a computer that would
>> be able to accomplish the 5 feats listed above would have to be
>> able to recapitulate this mechanism of
>> evolution in order to be able to mimic consciousness. In other
>> words, it couldn't achieve this by merely having a database
>> composed of all of the world's Information, but by having a
>> database founded hierarchically on human evolutionary 'experience',
>> beginning with the ambiguity of the first cell, its internal
>> environment constituted by negative entropy, or free
>> energy, sustained by chemiosmosis as its source of internal energy,
>> and monitored by homeostasis, the aggregate
>> of which I have termed The First Principles of Physiology.
>> Awareness of these relationships from the first instantation
>> of life to what we think of as 'mind' are the 'qualia' that
>> Chalmers has invoked for consciousness. And the externalization
>> of this process is what Andy Clark has referred to as 'disembodied
>> consciousness', which I think is the on-going effort to
>> return to the Singularity that existed prior to the Big Bang, by
>> reconciling the dualities and dichotomies that were generated
>> by the explosive disruption of the Singularity. Could this process
>> be mimicked by Artificial Intelligence?
>>
>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 3, 2018 at 5:48 AM, Mark Stahlman
>>> <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> ToKers:
>>>
>>> "Science" (as we know it) is a *revolutionary* process, that
>>> changes its demeanor based on the PARADIGM in which we are living
>>> -- which is to say, after Thomas Kuhn's 1962 "The Structure of
>>> Scientific Revolutions," it cannot adopt anything like a single
>>> "universal" attitude.
>>>
>>> Aristotle's science was not the same as Newton's and that wasn't
>>> the same as Einstein's and so on. As a result, one period's
>>> "science" will appear to be "anti-science" in another. (Yes, as
>>> you might recall, my father was a historian of science and I'm
>>> trained as a molecular biologist, so I have spent some time
>>> thinking about this topic.)
>>>
>>> Since the founding of the Royal Society of London in 1660 (but not
>>> institutionalized before that), "science" has presented itself as
>>> the rejection of "metaphysics" -- which, as the name implies, was
>>> a science that professed to be "meta" (an important topic for this
>>> list) the lower-level study of mere "physics." Yes, I have read
>>> the archives and noted that Gregg and John have already said a few
>>> words about all this.
>>>
>>> Of course, that rejection of "metaphysics" is just a posture,
>>> since it is impossible to actually eliminate what lies
>>> underneath/behind whatever science claims itself to be (in any
>>> particular paradigm). This fake effort to eliminate what can't be
>>> eliminated (termed the "disenchantment of the world" by Max Weber
>>> in his 1917 "Science as a Vocation" lecture) has resulted in the
>>> current collapse of what many take to be the foundation of
>>> "modern" (not to be confused with "postmodern") science -- physics.
>>>
>>> Recently a fellow I know who writes a blog for Scientific
>>> American, John Horgan (who works at the Stevens Institute of
>>> Technology, in Hoboken, NJ, where he teaches "creative writing"),
>>> wrote a fascinating article titled "How Physics Lost Its Way" that
>>> I recommend.
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__blogs.scientificamerican.com_cross-2Dcheck_how-2Dphysics-2Dlost-2Dits-2Dway_&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2_Z-WnBP9FFDe-vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx_mSj8C3g3HDGw&s=tJovVyVXkFjHvksbLzLaupM_sEzy5Bl1ZnrDpw3Uado&e=
>>>
>>> This, in turn, is based on Sabine Hossenfelder's brand-new "Lost
>>> in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray," that I also recommend .
>>> . . <g>
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Lost-2DMath-2DBeauty-2DPhysics-2DAstray_dp_0465094252&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2_Z-WnBP9FFDe-vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx_mSj8C3g3HDGw&s=Sy_8SfKNt-96VAH9g-bqUH43HeNrNdsL3qguXzur03I&e=
>>>
>>> I will leave the topic of "why" we go through these series of
>>> *paradigms* -- each one revolutionizing "science" anew -- until
>>> Gregg returns from vacation but perhaps another important book
>>> will stimulate some thinking on the matter. This is the crucial
>>> topic of *causality*, which, as it turns out, requires metaphysics.
>>>
>>> Judea Pearl's "The Book of Why: The New Science of Cause and
>>> Effect" is an attempt by a leading Artificial Intelligence
>>> researcher (and the "inventor" of Bayesian networks) to put a
>>> band-aid on the longstanding problem of *causality* in the West,
>>> going back to the Royal Society and its "rejection" (which, btw,
>>> does not exist in the same way in the East).
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.amazon.com_Book-2DWhy-2DScience-2DCause-2DEffect_dp_046509760X&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2_Z-WnBP9FFDe-vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx_mSj8C3g3HDGw&s=JMLEyDn5rIPMcpQqTt3ee_KL7e0HBRXLSfTBSffXGsw&e=
>>>
>>> Have fun on your 4th of July (btw, I'll be kayaking off Long Beach
>>> Island if anyone else is out that way) . . . !!
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> P.S. For those trying to get ahead-of-the-curve, you might have
>>> noticed that my Center bases much of its work on the insights of
>>> Marshall McLuhan. His last book was published posthumously with
>>> the title "The Laws of Media: The New Science," although, for many
>>> years, that title and subtitle were reversed, echoing the title of
>>> Giambattista Vico's 1725 "Scienza Nuova." Vico was writing in
>>> opposition to the "new science" of his day (i.e. Newton &al),
>>> making him, yet-another "anti-scientist" as things ultimately
>>> turned out.
>>>
>>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__en.wikipedia.org_wiki_The-5FNew-5FScience&d=DwIDaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=2_Z-WnBP9FFDe-vvHWZ7os7vDbHzDx_mSj8C3g3HDGw&s=MrJZ8RVJF7yWFrLIr5fsFwVMctnk8igjtQsAX5PEezk&e=
>>>
>>> Quoting JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]>:
>>>
>>>> Dear Waldemar and ToKers, thank you Waldemar for acknowledging the problem
>>>> I have highlighted with respect to recognizing the difference between
>>>> information and knowledge, a distinction which seems to be overlooked.
>>>>
>>>> What I had neglected to mention in this thread of ideas with regard to the
>>>> distinction between information and knowledge is that the Informaticists
>>>> think that if you haven't come up with the 'answer' to the problem, you
>>>> only need more data! That may work in a finite set, like the parts of the
>>>> Challenger, since Informatics was developed by NASA, but it is inadequate
>>>> for biologically-related problems like psychology and medicine; we know
>>>> that in biology the whole is not equal to the sum of its parts. As Jaron
>>>> Lanier, a Silicon Valley guru tells us, "You are not a gadget".
>>>> In order to
>>>> understand the ever-increasing data in such fields of biology we need to
>>>> 'know' how physiology actually works in order to effectively interpret and
>>>> utilize information. Learning to think critically to solve problems is
>>>> essential.
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 11:47 AM, [log in to unmask] <
>>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Friends:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am very much "in tune" with John’s comment about conflating information
>>>>> and knowledge.
>>>>> John, your comments remind me very much of how, for instance, data is (or
>>>>> may be) eventually “transformed” into information, knowledge, wisdom, or
>>>>> vision:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not aware of any computer program which is able to add the elements
>>>>> apparently required for each transformation (with the caveat
>>>>> that the is a
>>>>> LOT about computers and their programs of which I am not aware).
>>>>> It appears that the following are uniquely provided by humans:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Processing & relationship discovery.
>>>>> 2. Reasoning & the discovery of patterns.
>>>>> 3. The application of principles, empathy, and beliefs.
>>>>> 4. The application of values and desire.
>>>>> 5. The application of commitment.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The first two and part of #3 suggest the application of cognitive
>>>>> functions.
>>>>> Items 2, 3, and 4 suggest the involvement of affective functions.
>>>>> Item 5 suggests the use of conative functions.
>>>>> Requiring cognitive, affective, and conative functions suggests the
>>>>> application of multiple connectomes, likely in a recursive manner.
>>>>>
>>>>> While the first two part of the above list may be assisted by computers,
>>>>> the latter three seem to be beyond the domain of computers.
>>>>> Probably, most “normal” persons have the innate ability to do
>>>>> these tasks,
>>>>> but John’s experience suggests that the ability to apply all of the above
>>>>> requires considerable education and/or experience.
>>>>> Hence, the apparently general failure to apprehend the significant
>>>>> differences between D, I, K, W & V?
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Waldemar
>>>>>
>>>>> *Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD*
>>>>> (Perseveret et Percipiunt)
>>>>> 503.631.8044
>>>>>
>>>>> *Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value.* (A Einstein)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jun 25, 2018, at 12:48 PM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> If you can tolerate a little more anecdotal experience from back in the
>>>>> 20th Century, I was raised in a multilingual home (my first
>>>>> language is not
>>>>> english) in a multiethnic community in New York City and suburbs
>>>>> beginning
>>>>> in the 1950s. I was encouraged to think and be curious in order to
>>>>> assimilate. Although that was not encouraged educationally until graduate
>>>>> school, I was prepared for the education I received at McGill
>>>>> University in
>>>>> Experimental Medicine, being taught by scientists who were
>>>>> actively engaged
>>>>> in research, prime among them Hans Selye, the physiologist who coined the
>>>>> term 'stress'. He and his colleagues on faculty, who had discovered a
>>>>> number of hormones- cortisol, aldosterone, prolactin- taught us
>>>>> to problem
>>>>> solve in the way they had experienced it first hand in the laboratory,
>>>>> above all else, that failure meant you hadn't formulated the hypothesis
>>>>> correctly. Those were life lessons that I have carried throughout my
>>>>> research career. My son, a well-recognized American novelist
>>>>> does much the
>>>>> same research, only without having to generate data. When we were looking
>>>>> for schools for my son to attend back in 2000 the school representatives
>>>>> were advocating for a liberal education, given that in the future people
>>>>> would have multiple jobs over the course of their careers, and that a
>>>>> liberal education was good preparation for such a
>>>>> situation.......does that
>>>>> no longer apply due to the escalation of tuition?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks John. I fully agree with your assessment. No question that the
>>>>>> narrative has shifted over time to reducing the value of higher
>>>>>> education
>>>>>> to the overarching metric of earnings/jobs. Certainly a few
>>>>>> students still
>>>>>> remain who are curiosity-driven, across the many sciences and
>>>>>> humanities.
>>>>>> But these are more the exceptions than the rule. And honestly, I cannot
>>>>>> remember the last time I spoke with a parent who framed the
>>>>>> issues in any
>>>>>> other way apart from: "What can my kid actually *do *with this degree?
>>>>>> This is costing us a *lot* of money!" Finally, our government ministries
>>>>>> consistently stress more instrumental learning outcomes, as well as the
>>>>>> employment-related metrics. Most faculty members resist, but it has been
>>>>>> increasingly difficult to stem the tide in recent years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best, -joe
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Associate Academic Dean
>>>>>>
>>>>>> King’s University College at Western University
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 266 Epworth Avenue
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> London, Ontario, Canada
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
>>>>>> N6A 2M3
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fax: (519) 433-0353
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *ei*π + 1 = 0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of JOHN TORDAY <
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> *Sent:* Monday, June 25, 2018 2:02 PM
>>>>>> *To:* [log in to unmask]
>>>>>> *Subject:* Re: The Science of Anti-Scientific Thinking
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, I have read the Scientific American article in the interim. I find
>>>>>> the observations of interest, but as with my comment about the
>>>>>> conflation
>>>>>> of Information and Knowledge, the degradation of the
>>>>>> educational mission is
>>>>>> equally troublesome to me......for example, in the run-up to the 2016
>>>>>> Presidential election Bernie Sanders was advocating for free higher
>>>>>> education. The discussion of that issue revolved around
>>>>>> equating education
>>>>>> with earnings, without any mention of the quality of life for those with
>>>>>> advanced educations. Like so many aspects of society, we are undermining
>>>>>> the educational mission in the name of profit as yet another bottom line
>>>>>> enterprise. Given that, why would society put value in the generation of
>>>>>> scientific evidence, given that the process is misunderstood, if it is
>>>>>> understood at all? Teaching to the test for the sake of
>>>>>> expediency doesn't
>>>>>> give the student an appreciation of the process so he/she can fully
>>>>>> understand the significance of the content, or lack thereof. We are not
>>>>>> teaching our students to think and problem solve, we are
>>>>>> teaching them to
>>>>>> pass exams. When social 'values' are only measured in $ and
>>>>>> cents, this is
>>>>>> the result.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:42 AM, JOHN TORDAY <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Joe and ToKers, your email and the SA article are great talking
>>>>>> points for us to consider. However I think that there's an overriding
>>>>>> problem due to the tendency to equate Information and
>>>>>> Knowledge. This has
>>>>>> resulted from both the "Question Authority" movement and the
>>>>>> 'Arab Spring'
>>>>>> of technology leveling institutions of society, including
>>>>>> science.....discusss?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 8:16 AM, Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear Colleagues:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Please see the attached article from my newly arrived July 2018
>>>>>> issue of *Scientific
>>>>>> American*. The three main hurdles to clear scientific thinking they've
>>>>>>
>>>>>> identified are: 1) shortcuts to deal with cognitive overload; 2) the
>>>>>> well-know issue of confirmation bias; and 3) social goals (or
>>>>>> what we refer
>>>>>> to as influence as part of Gregg's J-I-I argument). I share the
>>>>>> article for
>>>>>> a few reasons.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> First, it's great to see a broad swath of the academic community (at
>>>>>> least the psychologists and the research cited) largely reaching similar
>>>>>> conclusions about cognitive biases - and how the work aligns
>>>>>> with much of
>>>>>> Gregg's framing and what I've been reading of others on our list-serv.
>>>>>> Gregg and I have attempted to joke, with some irony, that we
>>>>>> hope we're not
>>>>>> just creating our own "echo chambers" and exercising our own
>>>>>> "confirmation
>>>>>> biases" by agreeing too much. Every group needs the outliers to
>>>>>> help keep
>>>>>> us honest!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Second, I've mentioned before (using my own siblings in part as
>>>>>> exemplars) the problem of discussing issues and struggling to be
>>>>>> fair-minded, 'objective,' and receptive to alternative viewpoints, new
>>>>>> info, etc. And yet the academy itself has been increasingly
>>>>>> under attack in
>>>>>> recent years as "liberal re-education camps" and "close-minded" by not
>>>>>> embracing alternative viewpoints or shutting down speakers,
>>>>>> especially on
>>>>>> the right-wing end of the political spectrum, who challenge "liberal
>>>>>> orthodoxy" or may be skeptical of any claims-making from university
>>>>>> professors -- scientific or otherwise. Nancy commented in part on this
>>>>>> issue a couple of weeks ago in a quite insightful way. I'm thinking that
>>>>>> the issue is actually much broader in the sense that these issues affect
>>>>>> all of us, both inside and outside of academia. It's not simply
>>>>>> a matter of
>>>>>> any of us being "experts" in our fields or far more
>>>>>> knowledgeable about the
>>>>>> "facts" and "scientific evidence" in regard to our specialties. All
>>>>>> knowledge has a relational component too, i.e., depends upon the social
>>>>>> location of the actors relative to each other in combination with the
>>>>>> cultural sources of justification systems invoked. This
>>>>>> explains in large
>>>>>> measure, in my view, the rise of the "alternative facts" and "fake news"
>>>>>> critiques that have gained such popularity.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Finally, note too the fact that our researches across the many fields
>>>>>> within the academy -- but especially in the social sciences and
>>>>>> humanities
>>>>>> -- gradually have chipped away or at least provided insights about the
>>>>>> standard forms of knowledge and justification systems that have helped
>>>>>> certain groups to maintain their power and privilege for many
>>>>>> generations
>>>>>> (and across cultures). If I show you the lead article from the
>>>>>> well-respected journal *Criminology* last month (which confirms
>>>>>> something I've hypothesized about for years) showing the
>>>>>> adverse effects of
>>>>>> early childhood exposure to lead for healthy brain development and some
>>>>>> adverse behavioral outcomes, then how does one "receive" and "interpret"
>>>>>> that information? What are the implications for even something
>>>>>> as basic as
>>>>>> "equality of opportunity" for youngsters who grow up with high lead
>>>>>> exposure in their environments, to say nothing of the many other factors
>>>>>> that affect their "life chances" simply because they grow up in
>>>>>> a certain
>>>>>> neighborhood or attended woefully under-resourced schools or a thousand
>>>>>> other factors beyond their control? Back to the article and the various
>>>>>> mechanisms that we use to simplify the whole darn thing. I'm
>>>>>> thinking a la
>>>>>> Colonel Jessup's famous quote in *A Few Good Men*: "You can't handle the
>>>>>> truth!" Can any of us? 😎 Best regards, -Joe
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Associate Academic Dean
>>>>>>
>>>>>> King’s University College at Western University
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 266 Epworth Avenue
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> London, Ontario, Canada
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
>>>>>> N6A 2M3
>>>>>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__maps.google.com_-3Fq-3D266-2BEpworth-2BAvenue-2B-250D-250A-2BLondon-2C-2BOntario-2C-2BCanada-2B-2BN6A-2B2M3-26entry-3Dgmail-26source-3Dg&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=do8qGY5L8wCPzg90ijJs7PYMEw91kO9D8dlnwmfrJWc&s=Ls55Fxb--I1xu0iIsAwe-CMIjt09lHFOmq32QE2xEac&e=>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Tel: (519) 433-3491, ext. 4439
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Fax: (519) 433-0353
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Email: [log in to unmask]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ______________________
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *ei*π + 1 = 0
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>>>>>> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
>>>>>> n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>>>>>> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
>>>>>> n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>>>> ############################
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>>>>>> following link: http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bi
>>>>>> n/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ############################
>>>>>
>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>>>>> following link:
>>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=
>>>>> 1
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ############################
>>>>>
>>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>>>>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>>>>> following link:
>>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=
>>>>> 1
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ############################
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>>>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>>> or click the following link:
>>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>>
>>> ############################
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
>>> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>>> or click the following link:
>>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>>
>> ############################
>> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list: write to:
>> mailto:[log in to unmask] or click the
>> following link:
>> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
>
> ############################
>
> To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
> write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
> or click the following link:
> http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
