I have to admit that the tittle was a little bit sensationalist, but this was my feeling when Stephen and George started to puntualize their postures about the role of the networks in Connectivism. Actually, these differences started, I think, at the beginning of the second week, when we were discussing about the essence of knowledge.
I have to say that I’m ver happy with this disagreement. When we started the course there were some misunderstandings about what were we managing with in the Connectivism, and I think that the reason is here. Yes, knowledge and learning, but… what to learn?, how?, and, the most important: WHO?
If I’m not wrong, I think that I heard Stephen saying, in one of our meetings in the course, that knowledge was a property of networks, not humans… The knowledge is something that emerges in the networks, defined in a rude way, as connections between those famous learning things. In this sense we can understand that the knowledge resides in the connection, not in the individuals, and that the knowledge is not related in any way with meaning, sense or other logical or semantic concepts. That’s the reason because of I think that whatever can be a learning thing (computers, for instance, and even humans ;)): the main instance is the network that links the learning thing, and not the learning thing… The question here is why Downes says that is important the knowledge to be recognised by the learner thing… this is something that it’s not clear for me yet…
George’s point of view is more sensible, I think… (I realized I intuitively agreed with him taking a look to my week 1 mindmap) He is not focused in networks, but in the individuals that become networks. Both Stephen and George (I will talk about George’s point of view later in another post) recognize and define the knowledge because of the networks (they are essential), but, as they said today at Ustream, while one is focused in the wood’s connections the othes pays attention to the trees and how they connect.
Of course, hundred of consecuences are derived from both models (in epistemology, ontology, ethics, politics,…). And most are not compatible… But, what do you think? Trees or wood? Individuals or networks? What was before, the egg or the kichen?
I agree with you and i think make clear many things. When i was in Barcelona last July with Lola Torres we were talking about this at the Free Knowledge Conference where Downes had a gig about Education. It was a mix between the connnectivism “prospettiva” focused on individuals and networks (no groups) and a strange display of totalitarian ideas based in machines, public education and knowledge as a “public good” or something…
Maybe i feel like in a Chesterton´s story. Strange couple. As far as i can see, GS rocks the track…
¡Hola David!
por fin encuentro tu blog, anduve perdida en los caminos de la confusión como se dijo en la sesion en vivo de hoy en Ustream.
El que tanto Stephen y George definieran su postura tan claramente me dio un poco mas de claridad.
No se mucho de Neurociencia, tal vez por esto también me siento mas inclinada hacia la postura de George. Cierto todo el bosque aprende pero es la combinación de los árboles y arbustos lo que hace la diferencia.
Trataré de explicar la poca luz que gané hoy en mi blog, todavía le ando dando vueltas a algunas cosas.
Besos. Maru
Hola Maru,
Gracias por el comentario… Lo cierto es que el asunto de la neurociencia parece central en este punto.. y me explico: Stephen sostiene que el mismo modelo sistémico-conectivo que nos sirve para explicar la aparición de sistemas complejos de gestión de información (el cerebro, vamos) debería aplicarse tal cual a todos los sistemas subsiguientes. Así, nosotros somos como neuronas en el enorme cerebro social. En este sentido, claro, lo que explica el paradigma en el dominio (domains, los llamaron ayer tanto George como Stephen) que estamos tratando es el conocimiento social… Con esto creo que explicamos claramente por qué Stephen adopta esta postura tan extrema (no creo que esté tan falta de sustento teórico como muchos dicen).
Ahora bien, ¿qué pasa con nosotros? ¿somos meras neuronas, ciegas? ¿no tenemos nada que decir? ¿Qué repercusiones -estoy pensando en la ética, por ejemplo- tiene esta postura?
Buen post, gracias David.
Lo de los similes con la neurociencia a mi a veces me echa para atrás bastante. Me encantan los temas de neurociencia (como a mucha otra gente) y leo con ganas artículos de divulgación sobre el tema. Pero por mucho que me guste a veces pienso que se nos va la mano con tanto usarlo de “metáfora sociológica”. Sabemos tanto sobre el tema???
Además es cierto que si seguimos esta línea de “ciencia dura” para hablar de comportamientos sociales podemos acabar en conclusiones muy duras… Nos hace realmente tanta falta usar una “realidad” para explicar otra “realidad”? No sé. Bueno, paro de enrollarme.
Ciao, un saludo.
Very nice blog, your article is interesting, i have bookmarked it for future referrence
lol a lot of of the responses many people make crack me up, quite often i ask myself whether they realistically read the article content and items before writing a comment or if perhaps they barely read over the titles and write the first idea that one thinks of. in any case, it is actually enjoyable to read through clever commentary from time to time in contrast to the same, outdated post vomit which i commonly discover on the internet i’m off to enjoy a few hands of zynga poker adios