COMP6044   Just another ECS Blogs weblog

What is law?

Law seems to be a little harder to pin down than Anthropology (for me anyway).

According to Wikipedia (most of the information in this post will be from Wikipedia…), ‘law’ is a term that does not have a universally accepted definition but is generally a system of rules and guidelines enforced through social institutions. The law shapes politics, economics and society in various ways, and this varies from country to country. Law can raise important issues concerning equality, fairness and justice – The Universal Declaration of Human Rights proposes that ‘All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law’.

The settlement of the law is divided into two main areas; Criminal law and Civil law.

Criminal law: Deals with crime (duh) and conduct that is considered harmful to social order. Guilty parties may be imprisoned and/or fined. Regulates social conduct and forbids threatening, harming or otherwise endangering the health, safety and moral welfare of people.

Civil law: Unlike criminal law, civil law focuses on dispute resolution and victim compensation rather than punishment. Deals with the resolution of lawsuits (disputes) between individuals or organisations.

Under civil law, the following specialties, among others, exist:

Contract law: A contract is an agreement having a lawful object entered into voluntarily by two or more parties, each of whom intends to create one or more legal obligations between them. Contract law varies greatly from one jurisdiction to another, including differences in common law compared to civil law.

Property law: Regulates the transfer and title of personal property and real property.

Trust law: Applies to assets held for investment and financial security.

Tort law: Deals with compensation if property is harmed.

Constitutional law: Provides a framework for the creation of law, the protection of human rights and the election of political representatives.

Administrative law: Used to review the decisions of government agencies.

International law: Governs affairs between sovereign states.

At this point I skipped straight to legal theory and the philosophy of law, which sounds more like what I should be interested in. The philosophy of law is known as ‘jurisprudence’. Those studying jurisprudence seek to obtain a deeper understanding of the nature of law, legal systems and legal institutions. According to Wikipedia, jurisprudence can be broken down into categories or schools of thought.

Contemporary philosophy of law addresses problems in two rough groups:

–       Problems internal to law and legal systems as such.

–       Problems of law as a particular social institution as it relates to the larger political and social situation in which it exists.

Answers to these questions come from four primary schools of thought:

Natural Law: Sees that there are rational objective limits to the power of legislative rulers. Foundations of law are accessible through human reason. It is from laws of nature that human-created laws gain their force.

Legal Positivism: Contrasts Natural Law. Believes there is no connection between law and morality. The force of law comes from social facts (but Legal Positivists differ in opinion on what these facts are).

Legal Realism: Argues that the real world practice of law is what determines what law is – the force of law comes from legislators, judges and executives.

Critical Legal Studies: Developed in 1970’s. Argues that the law is contradictory and is best analysed as an expression of the policy goals of the dominant social group.

Wikipedia tells me to look at the work of Ronald Dworkin, who advocates a constructivist theory of jurisprudence that produces a middle path between natural law theories and positive theories. I’ll investigate whether or not this is relevant with some reading.

Hopefully that is more or less a basic outline of law… I think Property Law will be the most relevant when investigating the rights people have in their digital afterlives. I should also look into work already done surrounding Internet Law.

Next steps:

Deeper investigation in Jurisprudence, Property Law and the law online/Internet Law.

Read about Dworkin.

References:

Wikipedia…

This week I decided to adapt last weeks post to a more extended version:

A brief history:

Aristotle was perhaps amongst the first who drew attention to the way that the mind processes information. He was interested in the reasons why an argument could be accepted as valid by those who were both for and against it. His theory of syllogistic reasoning is a form of deductive reasoning that suggests the validity of the argument could be explained by its symbolic form rather than its content.[10]

Many years later Freud conceptualized the mind as an iceberg which was composed of three levels: The conscious mind (the top of iceberg which is out of water), The preconscious mind (the bit that submerges into the water but yet remains visible) and The unconscious mind (the bit that is hidden under the water).He believed that the unconscious (containing Id and Superego) is the biggest part of the mind which is responsible for many unexplained hidden emotions that the individual is not aware of, their existence and their consecutive behaviours which can therefore be seen as implicit or automatic.[3][5]

During the early 20th century Santiago Ramón y Cajal was studying the behaviour of micro structures of the neurons in the brain. Some of his observations led to what is today the foundation of modern neuroscience.[3]

At around the same time some scientists, including B.F Skinner, believed that in order to understand how the mind works they should focus on observing human behaviour rather than the hidden processes that happen in the mind. This led to the birth of behaviourism.[6]

In the mid 20th century Alan Turing saw the human brain as an “unorganized machine” that learned through experience. [1] He imagined a virtual device (the Turing machine) that could translate any humanly computable mathematical problem into a sequence of simple operations [2][4]

A few years later in 1959 Chomsky published a paper in which he proved that behavioural approaches were not valid in relation to the structure of English sentences.[1]

Later on various questions about the human mind and the way it processes information led to the birth of cognitive science.  An example of this is the thought processes that happen in the mind of a jazz musician when he/she is improvising (in some cases without any formal music theory knowledge).How do they know how to put the specific notes and phrases in the right order whilst making infinite set of improvisations in the chords that remain loyal to a finite set of formal structures?[10]

What is Cognitive Science?

In Cognitive Science the mind/brain, (including its characteristics and behaviour), is considered an object of scientific study (as opposed to behaviourism).

Although this field has been dramatically improved in recent years yet it remains an immature field as there are still many debates that remain unsolved. One of which is about its domain of research and its commitments. For example, should it also study the non-human intelligence such as animals or computers? Or should it also be investigating other phenomena of the human mind such as emotions? [7]

As a result the research framework and the questions about it have to be conceptualized in common sense terms. There seems to be substantial agreement amongst cognitive scientists that the research framework should include exploring human intelligence and cognition and its capacities (this includes a machine with information processing capacities). How do these capacities differ amongst different adults, genders, cultures, neurologically impaired patients, and other subsets of the human population. [7] This can be performed by redeveloping the mind as a machine that performs computational and representational activities. [8]

In 1950 to 1980 cognitive scientists used to see the mind/brain as a general-purpose conventional machine. [7] This was changed during 1980’s as notions were raised that the mind/brain is a connectionist device and the fact that the cognitive mind is not only a computational device, but it’s also a representational one. [7][8][11][12][13][14]

As we realized from the history of cognitive science, this field has a multidisciplinary nature as it can be described in three levels: [7]

1. Psychology (assumed as common sense)

2. Information processing (assumed as the non neural cognitive sciences like semantic and syntactic level (pylyshin 1984) or knowledge level and symbolic level (Newell 1986))

3. The neural level (assumed as neurosciences)

Scientists from different scientific perspectives such as computer science, artificial intelligence, psychology, neuroscience, linguistics and philosophy are using cognitive science in their fields to try answering many questions about the human mind.

Cognitive psychologists have achieved many breakthroughs in the areas of education and learning by studying the process of reading or learning. Applied cognitive science has been used by scientists to diagnose and treat learning difficulties, speech impairments, and aiding therapies for stroke victims. As exciting as applied cognitive science can be, it also raises many moral and political challenges for cognitive scientists in this field as the technology in some cases can be misused. [10] “For example results in computer vision might be used to design either a visual prosthesis for the blind or the control system of a cruise missile carrying a nuclear warhead.”[10] Therefore cognitive science is also interrelated with the studying of history, social science and humanities.[10]

As there has always been an analogy between the human mind and the computer mind, cognitive science and computer science are interrelated and on many occasions have played the role of a catalyst in the process of improvements and developments of one another but yet in some cases this can be misleading. [10]

Is cognitive science a normal science?

There have been disagreements amongst scientists in the past about whether cognitive science comes with a single coherent research paradigm or if what we have is just a variety of cognitive sciences. As cognitive science is still in the process of development, scientists are not able to come up with descriptions as final products. Kessle, with an empiricist view of science, claims that we must turn to the views of Kuhn.[7] Others suggested that cognitive science is antithetical to Kuhn’s views [9] and therefore Kuhn’s notion of paradigm (which some claimed is inconsistent and too open) cannot be applied to cognitive science. Also the fact that the framework of shared commitments cannot easily be rejected within cognitive science makes scientific revolutions quite unlikely to happen. [7] Some took a step further to claim that even other units for analyzing science like the logical positivist notion of theory and Larry Laudan’s notion of a research tradition could also not be applied to cognitive science.[7]

References :

1. Dr. C. George Boeree, Psychology:  The Cognitive Movement,http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/ai.html[Accessed 21 Oct 2013]

2. Anon,http://www.alanturing.net/[Accessed 30 Oct 2013]

3. Anon,The birth of cognitive science,Society for the philosophy of Information http://www.socphilinfo.org/node/166[Accessed 31 Oct 2013]

4. Houdé. O, Kayser D., Koenig O., Proust J., Rastier F. (2003) Dictionary of Cognitive Science: Neuroscience, Psychology, Artificial Intelligence, Linguistics, and Philosophy. Publisher: Routledge [Accessed 24 Oct 2013]

5.Cherry K., The Conscious and Unconscious Mind: The Structure of the Mind According to Freud, http://psychology.about.com/od/theoriesofpersonality/a/consciousuncon.htm[Accessed 31 Oct 2013]

6. David w. Green & others.( 1996) Cognitive Science: An Introduction ,Blackwell Publishers Ltd.

7. Eckardt B.C.( 1955), What is cognitive science? ,First MIT Press.

8. Stillings N.A, Weisler S.E., Chase C.H.,  Feinstein M.H., Garfield J.L., Rissland E.L.( 1995),Cognitive Science :An Introduction, Second Edition.

9. Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy, Thomas Kuhn, First published Fri Aug 13, 2004; substantive revision Thu Aug 11, 2011[Accessed 22 Oct 2013]

10. Stillings N.A., Weisler S.E.,Chase C.H.,Feinstein M.H., Garfield J.L. and Rissland E.L. (1987),Cognitive Science: An Introduction – Second Edition.(1-17)

11.Fodor J.(1975), The Language of Thought, Harvard University Press.

12. Newell, A. (1994).Unified Theories of Cognition, Harvard University Press; Reprint edition.

13. Haugeland J. (1981) , Mind Design. Cambridge, Mass.MIT Press

14. Pylyshyn Z.,(1984)Computation and Cognition: Toward a Foundation for Cognitive Science ,MIT Press.

When looking into the field of Computer Science, there seem to be many different views on the definition of the discipline. Some authors simply state a definition of the field, others say there is not one coherent definition, and some even argue that Computer Science cannot be considered as proper science. This week I will show some of these different views and herewith try to get an initial understanding of the field of Computer Science.

I will start with considering an author that has written a book to give (Computer Science) students “an overview of what Computer Science is”. Brookshear gives a definition of the discipline in the first line of his book:

“Computer Science is the discipline that seeks to build a scientific foundation for such topics as computer design, computer programming, information processing, algorithmic solutions of problems, and the algorithmic process itself”

(Brookshear, 2012: p. 16)

This definition seems a bit difficult to grasp, because Brookshear explains the field by giving examples of topics that it seeks to build a scientific foundation for. Still, an individual without previous technical knowledge does not necessarily understand what these topics encompass. Tedre says: “it is impossible to characterize the whole academic field of computing by making a list of topics with which all researchers would unanimously agree”. Tedre therefore argues that Brookshear’s definition has little “informational value” (Tedre, 2006: p. 349).

Tedre does not give his own definition of Computer Science, but explains that there have been many debates in the past about what Computer Science is about or should become. He adds that there are still is no complete consensus on the identity of Computer Science these days. The discipline has been diversifying radically since the rise of electronic digital computing, Tedre argues (Tedre, 2006: p. 161-162). This fact may also contribute to the inability in the scholarly world to come to a consensus about a solid definition for the field.

Tedre demonstrates this inability for example by the different opinions of Brooks and Hartmanis. Brooks argued in 1996 that Computer Science is a synthetic, engineering discipline. According to him, “anything which has to call itself a science, isn’t”. Also, he argues that computers are being seen more as tools and not as proper ends. This is led by “the emergence of new topic areas between computer science and many other disciplines” (Brooks in Tedre, 2006: p. 341-342). Hartmanis also thinks that Computer Science differs from other sciences, but he argues that it “is laying the foundations and developing the research paradigms and scientific methods for the exploration of the world of information and intellectual processes that are not directly governed by physical laws” (Hartmanis in Tedre, 2006: p. 346).  Tedre also quotes Minsky, whom in 1979 argued that Computer Science is hard to see as thing in itself, because it has so many relationships with other disciplines (Minsky in Tedre, 2006: p. 347).

Next to authors who simply state definitions of Computer Science or deny that it can be seen as a discipline, some authors explain why Computer Science can be seen as a discipline. The example that I pick here is coming from Dodig-Crnkovic. She argues that Computer Science is based on Logic and Mathematics. Herewith, she argues that there is one important difference, which qualifies Computer Science as a discipline just as well as the previously mentioned ones:

“The important difference is that the computer (the physical object that is directly related to the theory) is not a focus of investigation (not even in the sense of being the cause of certain algorithm proceeding in certain way) but it is rather theory materialized, a tool always capable of changing in order to accommodate even more powerful theoretical concepts.”

 (Dodig-Crnkovic, 2002: p. 7)

According to Dodig-Crnkovic Computer Science thus never has to reach an impasse, because of the ever evolving technology. Herewith, it can be considered as a scientific discipline.

Whereas I now looked at the different ways to define Computer Science, I will look into the different approaches in Computer Science next week.

Sources

Brookshear, J. Glenn. Computer Science. An Overview. Eleventh Edition. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited, 2012.

Dodig-Crnkovic, Gordana. Scientific Methods in Computer Science. Mälardalen University, 2002.

Tedre, Matti. The Development of Computer Science. A Sociocultural Perspective. University of Joensuu, 2006.

Researcher: Jo Munson
Title: Can there ever be a “Cohesive Global Web”?
Disciplines: Economics, Ethnography (Cultural Anthropology)

Adam Smith, coined the “father of modern economics”, associated with the theory of “Classical Economics”, discussed in “Economics 2 – Disciplinary approach, the Big Theories”

A very brief introduction to Economics

In my scouring of the web and relevant books, Economics has been defined in two ways:

the study of the production and consumption of goods, and the transfer of wealth to produce or obtain these goods.

and, more briefly:

the study of how people choose to use (scarce) resources.

I like both. The former gives a better overview of the systems in which Economics operate, whilst the latter pinpoints an area of key importance to the Economist: choice – where our desires may be infinite, but the availability of resources is finite.

With that unifying definition established, Economics is almost always split in to 2 subdisciplines (arguably 3):

• Macroeconomics – considers the economy as a whole, covering areas such as inflation, unemployment, economic growth and international trade, usually from a government’s perspective.
• Microeconomics – focuses on the decisions of the individual or individual firms. This includes such things as the demand and supply within a particular market and the factors affecting commodity prices or a firm’s share price.
• (Econometrics) – uses economic theory, mathematics, and statistical inference to turns theoretical economic models into useful tools for economic policy making.

Economics also generally considers questions of two types, reflecting its basis in both science and social sciences:

• Positive – objective, fact based statements that may not be correct, but can be proved or disproved.
• Normative – subjective, opinion based statements that cannot be proved or disproved.

The majority of theories / statements in Economics will in fact be partially Positive and partially Normative.

Having dipped my toe in Economic waters, establishing a workable definition and some sub fields / ways of thinking about questions in Economics, I will next look at some of the big problems and theories in Economics.

Next time (and beyond)…

I’ve had a quick reshuffle of the order, but broadly, I will be covering the following in the proceeding weeks:

• Can there ever be a “Cohesive Global Web”?
• Ethnography 1 – Introduction & Definition
• Ethnography 2 – Disciplinary Approach
• Economics 1 – Introduction & Definition
• Economics 2 – Disciplinary approach, the Big Theories
• Ethnography 3 – Methodologies & Analysis
• Economics 3 – Models & Methodologies
• Ethnographic Approach to the “Cohesive Global Web”
• Economic Approach to the “Cohesive Global Web”
• Ethno-Economic Approach to the “Cohesive Global Web”

Sources

Investopedia. 2009. Economics Definition | Investopedia. [online] Available at: http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economics.asp [Accessed: 28 Oct 2013].

Imf.org. 2013. Back to Basics Compilation. [online] Available at: http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/basics/ [Accessed: 28 Oct 2013].

Gillespie, A. 2007. Foundations of economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Image retrieved from: http://www.oxonianreview.org/wp/adam-smith-a-moral-philosopher/

This post will look at the different perspectives in psychology, and the subsequent different approaches to conducting psychological research.

Here are the seven different perspectives of psychology:

Biological Perspective – Studying the physical to inform the mental. Looking at the neural processes in our brains along with studying the immune system, nervous system and genetics to inform the mental processes. For example, people who are closely related to people who develop mental diseases, may have a greater chance of developing the same disease based on their similar genetics.

Behaviour Genetics – Looking at what extent of our personality traits stem from our genetics, commonly looked at as the ‘nature vs nurture’ debate. This is often studied using twins, looking at the similarity of twins brought up in the same environment, versus twins brought up in completely different environments and seeing which similarities still manifest themselves.

Behavioural Perspective – How conditioning/environmental events can affect how people behave. E.g if somebody was left handed, but rapped on the knuckles every time they used their left hand to write, that would build up a condition in their minds. Years later if they were asked to write something, they would instinctively feel nervous and in anticipation of pain at the idea of writing it with their left hand.

Cognitive Perspective – Analysing mental processes in relation to people’s past recollections and approaches to problem solving / reasoning. For example if someone feels like they cannot give a presentation in front of a large audience, chances are they will fail to do so.

Social Perspective – How people react to other people and situations based on their different social groups and cultures. For example different social groups may tend towards different political persuasions or particular likes/dislikes of food based upon the groups of people they interact with and what is seen as ‘normal’ in that culture.

Psychodynamic/Psychoanalytical Perspective – Proposing that people act in a certain way based on how they wish something to be as opposed to how it actually is. E.g somebody fails an exam, and professes not to care about said exam and that studying is overated, you know that that isn’t their philosphy on learning and they actually care about their grades, so you make the assumption that they are saying that to save face and that they merely wish that was true as opposed to actually believing it.

Evolutionary Perspective – Arguable ‘survival of the fittest’ approach, suggests that humans have adopted characteristics from their ancestors that helped them procreate and survive. For example, humans have an unhealthy appetite for fats and sugars, in the past the ability to obtain fats and sugars probably indicated a richer better lifestyle with a much higher chance of survival; whereas now such foods are so readily available it results in an unhealthy body.

Psychology also holds a selection of research methods, below is a description of these:

Experimental – Experiments are conducted in carefully controlled conditions (often a lab). This allows for certain variables to be carefully manipulated and to ensure that several of the same experiment can be replecated under the same conditions. The disadvantage to this is that lab conditions don’t mirror real life conditions and therefore these experiments can only make accurate predictions based on findings to a certain extent. In addition the different personalities of groups taking part in experiments also need to be taken into account, plus the fact that not everything can be tested within a lab situation. The key element in experiments are collecting measurements of specified variables in the study. E.g depriving five people of sleep and measuring how well their memory stands up compared to when they were fully functioning.

Correlational – This looks at the potential relationship between two variables and their affects on one another. This allows situations to be tested in a more real life style situation than in the lab (although of course this does mean that it will be less carefully controlled). The disadvantage of this is that whilst in an experimental method the cause is clear (increasing/decreasing a variable leads to a conclusion) but this cause and effect conclusion cannot be drawn from studies like this. How much these two variables are related is measured using a descriptive statistic called the ‘correlation coefficient’. This statistic will either show that the values are positively correlated (aka they increase or decrease together) or that they are negatively correlated (one increasing means the other decreases). An example of this would be taking a group of smokers, and a group of non smokers and looking at their taste sensitivities.

Observational – This can be done in one of two ways, direct observation of a naturally occuring event, or surveying a group of people to measure their responses. The advantage of direct observation is that it shows things happening in their natural environment as opposed to specifically controlled conditions such as a lab (which would be hard to use in this type of study). However when the observer is merely watching the events as opposed to measuring/testing them in some way, then the results can be potentially tainted by observer bias, not to mention if people know they are being observed. Survey observation is advantageous as it can reveal a group opnion/attitude towards a certain issue, although it also depends on the participants being not only honest but able to accurately report their thoughts. Neither of these types of research allows us to establish causation either.

Case Studies – Where a small number of cases are investigated in depth. This allows the psychologist to build up a more complex profile than a one time experiment or observation, and they tend to provide common data that can lead towards producing a hypotheses. However, this is not the sort of research that can be easily repeated in such a way that multiple sets of studies could aid one another, and again is subject to researcher bias.

Obviously looking at all of these different perspectives and methodologies is unrealistic, not only because we are writing a 2500 word essay, but because not all of these are relevant to how one would go about studying how gender is represented on the web from a psychological point of view.

The perspectives and research methods that would be most relevant to this study are:

Psychodynamic/Psychoanalytical Perspective – looking at why different people represent genders in a potentially unequal manner on the web, and are these representations merely a way of showing their unconscious mental desires (e.g similarly to pretending that one doesn’t wish to be in a relationship after the other person leaving, one might perceive a comment as ‘sexist’ or indeed face a real life situation involving gender bias, and subsequently unconsciously be drawn to expressing an unequal view on the web.)

Behavioural Perspective – looking at how we have been conditioned to react to certain things, perhaps some men and women are conditioned to believe that ultimately their gender is better and that is reflected in their behaviour on the web. Additionally perhaps some people/genders are conditioned to feel like the unvervalued gender and therefore look for gender inequality where it doesn’t exist.

Direct Observation – looking at how events on the web unfold, facebook groups, forum conversations, blogs etc.

Case Studies – looking at studies and research on this issue.

[1] B. L. Fredrickson, S Nolen-Hocksema, G. R. Loftus, and W. A. Wagenaar. Atkinson and Hilgards’s Introduction to Psychology. Cengage Learning EMEA, 2009, 15th edition, 2009.
[2] D. G. Myers. Exploring Psychology. Worth Publishers, 2009, 7th edition, 2008.
[3] D. Westen and R. M. Kowalski. Psychology, Study Guide. Wiley, 5th edition, 2009.

Aristotle was perhaps amongst the first who drew attention to the way that the mind processes information .He was interested in the reasons why an argument could be accepted as valid by those who were both for and against it. His theory of syllogistic reasoning is a form of deductive reasoning that suggests the validity of the argument could be explained by its symbolic form rather than its content.

Various questions about the human mind and the way it processes the information has led to the birth of cognitive science. An example of this is the thought processes that happen in the mind of a jazz musician when he/she is improvising (In some cases without any formal music theory knowledge).How would they know how to put the specific notes and phrases in the right order while making infinite set of improvisations in the chords that remain loyal to a finite set of formal structures.

Cognitive science has a multidisciplinary nature. Scientists from different scientific paradigms such as computer science, psychology, neuroscience, linguistics and philosophy have used cognitive science in their fields to try finding answers to many questions about the human mind. We can have a look at a few examples of this below:

Cognitive science today is a major part of computer science as there has always been an analogy between the human mind and the computer mind. These two fields on many occasions have played the role of a catalyst in the process of improvements and developments of one another but yet in some cases can be misleading.

Cognitive psychologists have achieved many breakthroughs in the areas of education and learning by studying the process of reading or learning .Applied cognitive science has been used by scientists to diagnose and treat learning difficulties, speech impairments, and aiding therapies for stroke victims. As exciting as applied cognitive science can be, it also raises many moral and political challenges for cognitive scientists in this field as the technology in some cases can be misused. Therefore cognitive science is also interrelated with the studying of history, social science and humanities.

Reference:

I’ve decided to approach this assignment by focusing on a disciplinary at a time, as well as enhancing my knowledge on the Digital Divide. This week I have focused on Geography, Human Geography to be specific.

Research:

The chunky textbook “An Introduction to Human Geography”  by P. Daniels et al, has been the first to enlighten me on the foundations of Human Geography. Likewise to Web Science, it is known to be a multi-disciplinary field of study. “It is about the world around us” but this does not just mean the physical aspects, which we all initially think of when Geography is mentioned. Human Geography draws upon sociology, anthropology, politics as well as oceanography and geology (and many others). It’s focus involves people in places, spaces and landscapes that are modified by human interventions.

This book provided a significant insight to a range of topics covered within Human Geography, including Globalisation, Demography, Capitalism, Social Inequalities and Spatial Divides. The majority directly and indirectly affecting, the digital divide:

Globalisation:- “Shrinking World’; affected by technical, political, cultural and economical factors; Fast developing technologies and Satellite Communications = more global and connected world;

Capitalism:- Between 1500 and 1900 fundamental changes of the organisation of the western world; World Systems theory uses the socio-economic systems involving 3 categories –  Core, Periphery and Semi-Periphery; Industrial Production is noted to be regionally diversified and geographically uneven; Newly Industrialised Countries’ (NIC’s) are ‘catching up’.

Social Inequality and Spatial Divides:- Labels with negative associations for the under developed; requires encouragement for solving development problems; 2-way relationship between society and space; mapping based on quality of life (needs and desires) in different places; measured by Human Development Index (HDI) taking into account a variety of factors including access to the internet/technology

Reference: Daniels., P, Bradshaw., P, Shaw., D, Sidaway., J,  (2012) An Introduction to Human Geography, 4th ed, Essex: Pearson.

Although going backwards with regard to the publication date, the Human Geography Issues for 21st Century by P. Daniels et al textbook was also a worthwhile read. It discusses the focus Geographers have – an interest in ways places differ from one another and the similarities and interconnections between places. In terms of the digital divide this is relevant as it is vital to understand the cause of the divide, comprehend it’s effects and draw up solutions.

Population, Resources and Development:- the concern isn’t just about the resources running out, but the exchange and consumption of the resources that benefit rich nations at the expense of the poor and natural environment; The terms ‘Push’ and ‘Pull’ factors, related to migration, put pressure on resources and increase social tensions – access to, and use of, technology is a major push/pull factor.

Impact of technologies:- dynamic and linked to human society; A definite ‘technological progress’; Makes old technologies and associated resources redundant; The resource-rich are able to exploit the use and supply of resources – causing wars and conflict; Technological change improved link between economic development and energy consumption – the developing world could go through this development too?!

Digital Economy:- I believe to be Geographer’s terminology linking to the Digital Divide; The Global Digital Economy is changing the geography of the economy, with the use of the internet, e-commerce and digital economies rapidly growing and diversifying; The challenge is connecting national economies to the internet, being excluded will widen a gap that already exists; Connecting countries to the internet is improving;  Still major steps involving training and educating to be able to use the technologies; There is a clear geographical distribution of available computers/telecommunications/networks and software – all of which are needed to participate in the digital economy; Issue that introducing these technologies in the developing world will bring more negative impacts than positive, as it requires users to be highly skilled (a trait many in the developing world have unfortunately not been able to obtain).

Reference: Daniels., P, Bradshaw., P, Shaw., D, Sidaway., J, (2008), An Introduction to Human Geography: Issues for the 21st Century, 3rd ed, Essex:Pearson

My Thoughts/Questions:

The research so far has left me to ponder on the following:

– Was there already a significant gap before the Digital Divide was established?

–  Is the Technology being blamed for a gap that already existed simply because it has been a major contributor to the expansion of the divide?

– Prior to the evolution of technology, were there actions in place to reduce the gap between the first and third world?

– We have caused this digital divide – but realistically, will it ever close or only expand?

– Have we simply created a vicious circle we now can’t control?

– If NIC’s are overcoming the divide, surely other developing countries can?

– Do the western/developed countries genuinely want to help improve/overcome the digital divide or is it too risky as it could jeopardise the benefits the developed world receive (i.e. could it lose their connections, cheaper access to resources etc)?

Issue: How to reach a global consensus on the balance to be struck between the right to freedom of expression and content which should be illegal on the web.

Having decided upon Anthropology and Mathematics as my two disciplines, I have spent the past two weeks researching the basics of both and trying to narrow down which specific areas of the disciplines I will be applying to my issue.  The subject of this post will be my current reading in relation to Anthropology …

Anthropology

This week I picked up ‘The Anthropology of Development and Globalization‘ by Marc Edelman and Angelique Haugerud from the library. Because the main crux of my issue is essentially that of assimilating the various views of nation states on where the line of freedom of expression should be drawn, I thought this book may provide an insight to how nation states have dealt with globalization through the eyes of anthropology.

Globalization has led to the increased integration of various places in the world economy and has resulted in improved transportation and communication systems (including the web) on multidirectional cultural flows.

This book is made up of a number of short essays, many of which have been interesting but one in particular has proven rather applicable. ‘Seeing Culture as a Barrier’ by Emma Crewe and Elizabeth Harrison, some points which I found particularly interesting were:

–       The idea of traditions holding people back has a persistence across development industry

–       Traditionalism is partly attributed to economic or ecological conditions, but is often conceived as being linked to a psychological or cultural disposition that is in some sense backward and prevents people from embracing modernity

–       Characterisation of culture implies stasis unless a culture is influenced by ‘modern society’.

–       Barriers to development due to ‘cultural rules’ are seen as much more immovable

In applying the discipline of Anthropology to my issue, the questions I am beginning to consider are:

–       What elements influence nation states views on acceptable online content?

–       What are the different approaches they take and why?

–       Had nation states shown development in the content they allowed to enter circulation prior to the web?

Next post …

Mathematics!

Rather than focus specifically on my disciplines in this blog, I thought I might share with you the basis of the topic that I am exploring in a little more detail. The reason for this is because, as part of my reading and understanding of the web, it raises some interesting points that are shaping the direction of my enquiries into the disciplines in question. It is also important because it has given me specific consideration of avenues for discussion as both disciplines are considerable in scope- to wade in without a clear focus isn’t achievable.

A question: Did you know that 1/3 of children have received a sexually explicit text or email?

The article referenced, actually a speech given by David Cameron, which influenced my decision to follow this particular topic, is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-internet-and-pornography-prime-minister-calls-for-action

If we explore this from a critical stance it opens up a range of issues relevant to both my two disciplines. Notably, however, are the wide range of potential philosophical arguments that relate to moral ethics. There are clear themes regarding virtues, action and moral duty as well as links to categorical imperatives. Further to this, the entire basis of the proposed reform is in fact, philosophical- it is grounded in the idea of taking action, even though it may be unpopular. This is eerily affirmed in the closing remark “That is what is at stake, and I will do whatever it takes to keep our children safe.” This could be interpreted as a strong stance on the importance of protecting individuals, those vulnerable, from harm- moral ethics and action. Likewise it could also be considered a political philosophy, a statement in its own right about the decisions of Governments being made irrespective of the agreements of the many. A number of other systems of Government, especially those on the extremes of the political spectrum, have argued that taking such action is justifiable if its for a specific purpose. Likewise could such a philosophical stance be argued by a Government in order to justify other actions? To where would that lead? Is censorship valid if its for good?

Likewise it opens up a range of interesting debates about the idea of responsibility, a key theme within philosophy as evident in reading so far. At many times, in fact, the speech appears as an attack on the web itself, as an entity beyond the control of society, its leaders and the search providers such as Google. “If there are technical obstacles to acting on this, don’t just stand by and say nothing can be done, use your great brains to overcome them.” The most interesting application of this is with the following argument: “Companies like Google make their living out of trawling and categorising content on the web, so that in a few key strokes you can find what you’re looking for out of unimaginable amounts of information. That’s what they do. They then sell advertising space to companies based on your search patterns. So if I go back to the Post Office analogy, it would be like the Post Office helping someone to identify and then order the illegal material in the first place and then sending it on to them, in which case the Post Office would be held responsible for their actions.”

It is clear, then, that the topic identified has further relevance in terms of philosophical action- in that, who has responsibility to act, why and how should they. This links back to my previous post about the responsibility of parents and just whose moral duty it is to take action. It is also important to recognise that the stance explores two very different issues and this, in itself, creates confusion: child pornography and children accessing pornography. It relates back to the argument of harm, interestingly offering a philosophical argument of which is of greater priority. Distinctions are not drawn in the argument, rightly placing equal emphasis on both. What is clear, however, is the stance of Cameron that not enough is being done and that those of us in a position to shape the web have greater responsibility than we are acting on, apparently. Set your greatest brains to work on this. You’re not separate from our society, you’re part of our society and you must play a responsible role within it. I could offer a point about social shaping and technology here.

The premise of censorship is relatively simple, according to Cameron: “we’ve agreed home network filters that are the best of both worlds. By the end of this year, when someone sets up a new broadband account, the settings to install family friendly filters will be automatically selected; if you just click next or enter, then the filters are automatically on.”. However will it work this simply? How do filters identify what is and isn’t adult material and to what extent can it be affirmed as technologically viable? After all, the speech itself doesn’t appear to make any difference between the web and the internet; in fact, not once, is the word ‘web’ used at all. How then, will such filters work? Are they operating on the ISPs network, or are they instructing the web browsers through the network…and so on.

Over the past couple of weeks I have decided to introduce myself to the wonderful world of philosophy, as this seems as good a place to start as any. From my understanding, philosophy tries to gain an understanding of the more fundamental questions of human existence, with the idea that this will lead to a more thorough understanding of life itself. In this sense some argue that philosophy adds to traditional science by giving answers to questions beyond. However unlike traditional science its methods are very different. As traditional scientific methods are arguably involved in philosophical questions themselves, philosophy does not rely on these but instead it builds up knowledge from its own history using systematic reflection. Further to this some have commented that philosophy cannot necessarily be studied and learnt like other disciplines as it something you learn by doing as opposed to by reading about.

Main theories

As stated before there are three main theories in philosophy (although these themselves arguably interrelate with each other, as well as containing an almost endless supply of sub-theories).

Metaphysics – this is about the study of the ‘ultimate nature of reality’, and attempts to distinguish how we can know whether everyday reality is ‘real’. This area includes topics such as dualism, materialism and realism, the latter of which argues that reality exists independently from the mind.

Epistemology – this explores whether knowledge can be independent and includes topic such as empiricism, rationalism and idealism.

Moral and Political Philosophy – explores how individuals behave within society and includes topics such as consequentalism, utilitarianism and contract theory, the former of which argues that moral reasoning should focus mainly on the consequences of our actions.

Regarding the area of social change on the internet I believe the theory most applicable to the study is Moral and Political Philosophy. Whilst metaphysics and epistemology are clearly important areas of study they are perhaps to abstract to such a specific topic. However moral and political philosophy applies well. For example moral philosophy might explore why people behave differently in an online space to physical space, or ask whether a lack of consistent societal norms might have an impact. Political philosophy might look at whether we should follow governmental rules in the first place, or ask whether liberty online is a freedom citizens should have. Political philosophy particular is an area I hope to explore further as this both applies to the topic and succinctly combines the disciplines of study.

In the next blog post I am going to look at the area of politics specifically to explore whether there are particular themes or theories that are most appropriate to the topic area.

References

Nutall, J. ‘An Introduction to Philosophy’
Warburton, N. ‘Philosophy the Basics’
Craig, E. ‘Philosophy: A Very Short Introduction’
Sellars, R. ‘The Principles, Perspectives and Problems of Philosophy’
Newtown, I. ‘Giants’
Honderich, T. ‘The Oxford Companion to Philosophy’