---------------------------------------------------------------
Summary: I argue that contrary to Englebart's frequent assertions he
doesn't currently (he arguably did 40 years ago) a new paradigm. I
also indicate that those who class his ideas within his context reduce
the odds of their actual implementation.
------------------------------------------------------------------


I will start this post off with a quick correction because it happens
to be relevant and because I believe some attempt at rigor should be
made despite the fact that I tend to throw out arguments quickly as a
matter of "brainstorming," these posts are discussion with the flaws
that impies.

Including very long paragraphs (see above.)

The correction I wish to make refers to my previous post:


> like referances to "imminent death of the
>net,' "meme," "paradigm" and "meta" are generally considered part of
>"trollology."

>However because in Englebart the last 2 and especially the

!!!!! last !!!!!


>(though
> it's unclear if he's read Kuhn) are used quite seriously we get to
> engage in various forms of "meta troll" with the alternating
> linguistic states and semantical constructs and semantic deconstructs

I should have said second to last since the word I referred to was:

PARADIGM

Hopefully the referance to KUHN did not completely escape you. I will
provide some referances which a quick look indicates are decent..

http://departments.weber.edu/physics/johnston/mundane/kuhn.htm

http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/Kuhnsnap.html

http://www.emory.edu/EDUCATION/mfp/kuhnsyn.html

A quick review of this will show 2 things, rejection of a new paradigm
is expected and it isn't clear what a paradigm is.

I have rapidly grabbed 2 quotes to give some sense of how paradigm is
used. This from the first link:


>In normal science, the paradigm is already pre-formed, providing a
>foundation of theories, ontological assumptions, and procedures with
>which to work.

This from the second:


>Kuhn argued that normal science progresses because members of a
mature >scientific community work from a single paradigm or from a
closely >related set

The first quote indicates a paradigm involves a number of theories,
ontologies and techniques. It is a very general construct. The
second implies that a number of related or similar paradigms are
standard in a "normal" (or stabilized) field.

I think it can legitimately be argued that what Englebart was arguing
in the early sixties was the emergence of a new paradigm.

But is what he is arguing now still a radical departure from the old
or a variant of beliefs that are widely accepted?

To give some context the atomic model of the early 20th century
created a new paradigm. Did the discovery of quarks and such things
which complicated definitions of electrons and protons constitute a
new paradigm? Possibly. Do the new classes of gluons or whatever
break the paradigm. Less likely. The general ontological structure
remains, there are simply new details and differing opinions of
details within them.

Engelbart's notion of computers as tools to connect and "augment"
the"knowledge society" are widely accepted. There is even widespread
use of the general types of tools he helped pioneer. The differences
are on specifics and they can be very important specifics, but the
general theme is agreed upon, almost by everyone, at least in principle.

As for various "communities" using these tools, developing others and
helping form organizations for the development of society this is
less universally believed in. but certainly GNU, various parts of the
Internet itself and all kinds of other groupings share goals and
methods with his hypothesized "network improvement communities."

So what makes Englebart's current approach a "new paradigm?" It
certainly does not cause many of the predicted behaviors. Many people
seem eager to embrace it, there is little indication that many find it
threatening.

It also seems to contain many old paradigms, notions that were part of
much "normal" social "science" 40 years ago, the idea that an elite
group of people can direct and define a social "evolution" is very
different from emerging "pardigms" which indicate such "evolutions"
share many features with biological evolution, set off by often random
triggers, with best options often selected by various forms of
competition, non teleological in development... not definable or
predictable even at the "pardigmic" level of organization...

My point *here* is not to fault Englebart's specific proposals (though
I will later examine and criticize aspects of some) but to state my
feeling that in this (as in several other areas) he draws a false
divide that distinguishes his notions and work from that of others.

I don't fault him at a personal level for this, genuis often creates
it's own visions, works within the context of these, ignores much
outside of this and resists the distortions that other ideas can have
on the total structure. I wonder if the above sentence makes sense,
but as I indicated above I write quickly.

I have no desire in "correcting" Englebart, but I do believe that what
I say is important for those who would actually take his ideas
seriously. As I will try to develop more pragmatically on a future
article relating to links, I think that if we take seriously
Englebart's frequent assertion that existing systems fail to do much
of anything that he thinks necessary, then we encourage the oblivion
of his proposals.

However if we work with a different "pardigm" which is that many
existing systems do the things he regards as important, that indded
they often do brilliant and important things he never thought of and
that if Engelbart's ideas are thought not as part of an "atomic"
whole, but as bit and pieces in a larger social paradigm, then some of
them can be attached to existing systems thus improving them.

Thus I would regard Englebarts approach not as a "pardigm" separate
from all others, but as a set of approaches which may differ from
others in the larger paradigm, but fit comfortable with it, though as
with truly scientific assertions many may be rejected.

I think the "exceptalism" of his approach has hindered many of his
valid positions from aplication. And though this may be acceptable in
him as an individual it isn't acceptable in those who take his ideas
seriously.