Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ethics-l
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 07:09:17 EST
From:         JFCOVALE@SUVM.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Computers at elementary levels

Thank you, Dr. Weaver, for your elgant defense of computers (which, among
other things, allows all of us to profit from each others' thoughts).

But I was struck by your comments on AI; I thought the claims of AI were
stronger than you suggest.  Namely, it has been my understanding of the AI
community that the project was to duplicate human intelligence, not merely
find a way to "automate the acqisition and application of knowledge."  The
thrust of the porject seems to be (as least as presented in the lay press)
to show that computers can do anything people can do, and that, if that is
so, then the human brain is nothing more than a computer, i.e., machine.
The philosophical commitment beyond that project can be significant.  The
difference between human an computer intelligence is then just one of carbon-
versus silicon based intelligience.  That seems like higher stakes than
your account entails.  But I am new in discussing this with people who really
know, and an outsider to boot; can you clarify this issue?

And while I disagree with Dr. Seltzer's conclusions, I also think there may
be more truth than you allow in the claim that computers restrict thinking.
While you encourage your students to think freely and then translate into
code, suggesting that this removes the constraints that comnputers would other-
wise face, it remains true (?) that there are many sorts of thoughts than
cannot be translated into that code.  Do these sorts of thinking become invalid
(in the student's eyes) for that reason?

I think that Dr. SDelzer's basic fear - that education is a human activity,
and that the hidden effect of CAI with young children is to take the human
element out of the loop - is the right one.  But no more than Lud could prevent
the industrial revolution can we isolate our children form the reality of the
computer revolution.  The question is then shifted to a policy one: what
pottential for good and harm do these machines bring, and how can we maximize
the former and minimize the latter?  With young kids, for examppmle I would
be a lot more comfortable using the computer as word processor than for any
form of CAI instruction (i.e., any programmed instruction, which is where
I see the real danger for kids, as learning can then be disonneected from the
human context).

The computer is indeed a tool; as an educational tool, "good" use depends on
the answer to a question we have not been very good at asking: what do we
think "education" is?

And thank you, Dr. Weaver and Dr. Seltzer, for your wonderfully thought-
provoking use of the computer.


****************************************************************
*                                                              *
*                    John F. Covaleskie                        *
*      Cultural Foundations of Education and Curriculum        *
*  259 Huntington Hall                                         *
*  Syracuse University                 Maloff Towers, #2       *
*  Syracuse, NY  13244                 Chittenango, NY  13037  *
*  315/443-3343                        315/687-5595            *
*                   JFCOVALE@SUVM.BITNET                       *
*                                                              *
****************************************************************