Postman wrote pre-internet and spends a lot of time telling us how he thinks we relate to the machines. Do you agree? What things does Postman say that you find problematic, interesting, or different from how you think of computers today? What does Postman believe?

Postman compares computers to humans and in philosophical guise writes, as they are human. This past week my husband and I watched a television show on the human brain. They compared the human brain to a computer- I have also have said this. On the show computer programmers were attempting to build a computer to play Jeopardy against former champions (humans). On the first attempt the computer failed miserably. Why? Because it is not human, it is a machine filled with facts and information. Jeopardy is not a simply a game in which you recall facts. It requires an understanding of language with knowledge of facts and information. Computers cannot think, rationalize as humans can. They are machines. I teach students to use a calculator to solve math problems. When I tell them they have the wrong answer they say that’s what the calculator said. I tell it is still the wrong answer. They input the wrong numbers and thus it gave a wrong answer. It was their mistake not the calculator.

I totally disagree with Postman the computers reign sovereign over human experiences and “thinks” better than myself. A computer is a machine and is only as good as the programmer that programmed it. I did have to agree with Postman and was glad that he stated that humans have a mental life that cannot be duplicated by a machine.

I think Postman was thinking that a computer was like God. He compared “ the computer shows….determined…” to “God’s will”. A computer cannot act alone. My Mac book cannot turn itself on once I turn it off. Computers are tools. Computers do render decisions- output data- without bias or judgment. I don’t believe that we have devalued the human capacity for technology.

One thing I found interesting was when Postman was talking about their not being a “great computer” as there are great writers, artists or musicians, but rather a great programmer. I do agree with him on that.

Postman talks about “invisible technologies” like language and its use. Do you think he’s right about how they are used? Do you agree with his interpretation? Why or Why not?

Postman identifies language and management as invisible technologies”. I think he believes that because language is our way of communication and an expression of our thoughts and feelings that works to create the “tail wagging the dog”. I agree with Postman that language is “simply a natural expression of who and what we are”. Language is a means to communicate to the world our thoughts and feelings. Language can evoke emotions and shape our opinions.

Postman examines language through the use of questions and polling. I do agree to some extent that questions can give direction to thoughts, ideas and feelings. I agree that polling does seem to drive media, politics, and business. However, I do not think all this polling is necessarily a bad thing. Polling then give rise to statistics which gives us more information, questions occupying our minds and wreaking havoc according to Postman.

I like information. I like meaningless facts and sometimes find them interesting.. I don’t see the problem in keeping world records or knowing how big is the biggest dog in the world. I don’t think meaningless facts are wreaking havoc on my mind, thoughts or driving my decisions. I can understand that polling and statistics can drive some behavior but does so in a good way not to my detriment. I look at the rating of hotels in which I am going to stay. I read reviews of products I am about to purchase. This information does guide my decision. I am happy I can learn from others experience and polling.

“Scientism” is something Postman made up. What do you think about his three pillars? Do you agree with his idea of science and morality? Why or Why not?

Postman’s three pillars are: 1) the methods of the natural sciences can be applied to the study of human behavior (psychology and sociology); 2) social science generates specific principles used to organize society on a rational and human basis; and 3) faith in science can serve as a comprehensive belief system giving meaning to life and sense of well-being, morality, and immortality.

I agree with most of what Postman stated about the social sciences and their research. I agree that social “sciences” are based on hypothesis that can be proven with hard facts or science. So I could see how a psychiatrist is different from a chemist in proving their theories. Social sciences are dealing with people and every person is different and an individual. An interesting point that Postman makes is that social research never discovers anything but rather rediscovers what people were once told. I somewhat agree with that statement.

Postman believed that Technopoly transforms these soft social sciences to objectify humans. Technopoly birthed “scientism” to bring us truth based in science. Postman’s perception is that all sciences are essentially a form of storytelling. This storytelling is discrediting “God” and faith based morality. Postman states that scientism is the hope and belief that some “science” can provide a solid source of moral authority.

I do not agree with Postman on a personal level. I look to my faith and belief in God to set and guide my morality. I do believe that society has its own morality based on the morals set forth. The government has laws and school codes of conduct on how to behave. I am attempting to piece together and trying to gain perspective into what Postman is trying to communicate (some parts are easier to follow than others).