是现在知识的进步,还是知识的历史和房间里的大象

IF 1.1 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
CLIFFORD SISKIN
{"title":"是现在知识的进步,还是知识的历史和房间里的大象","authors":"CLIFFORD SISKIN","doi":"10.1111/hith.12371","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>What role should history play in the advancement of knowledge? Because it was so “hard,” so “unbelievably difficult … to get people to believe” in his <i>Great Renewal</i>, Francis Bacon thought a history of knowledge could provide evidence of advancement—a reason to “believe” and participate in his experiment. By indexing advancement, historians of knowledge could foster it. If Bacon were with us today, he would be happy to hear that the history of knowledge is a thriving enterprise. But upon reading our version, he would be dismayed to discover that advancement is nowhere to be found. It's the elephant in the room. That shouldn't surprise him or us—the great difficulty of <i>The Great Renewal</i> is that it always needs to be renewed—but this is a new kind of precarity. I call it friendly fire, because it's damage done not by those who wish to contain or undermine knowledge but by those whose purpose it is to produce and valorize it. Why, I ask in this article, is a volume that offers so much of value—<i>Information: A Historical Companion</i>—so unattuned to issues of advancement? Although occasioned by the current ubiquity of “information,” its focus is not on change—asking such questions as “why information?” and “why now?”—but on asserting the “belief” that “every age is an information age.” In a history built on that belief, change is relegated to subordinate clauses (“while recognizing changes over time”) and advancement isn't even on the table. I put it back on not by rejecting this companion but by providing a companion for it, one in which identifying and classifying change is the central task. I take two preparatory steps. First, I clarify how the concept of “culture” configures the agenda and the findings of Companion 1 while fencing out advancement. Second, I set the agenda for Companion 2 by specifying that the knowledge at stake in advancement is “explanatory knowledge.” I both address concerns about the notion of “progress” and provide a vocabulary for explanation highlighted by the concepts of “fit” and “reach.” Companion 2 then approaches the elephant from a number of angles, from a shift in information over four centuries from a matrix of currency to a matrix of possibility to the pacing of that change by a feature of the history of knowledge that I call the “sequence of surprise.” Since Bacon's highest hope for his history of knowledge was to make us better at advancing it, I conclude with a speculative turn to information's future, from Alan Turing's first use of the word “information” in its modern sense to a rethinking—through the history of knowledge—of the “hallucination” issue in our new forms of generative AI.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47473,"journal":{"name":"History and Theory","volume":"64 1","pages":"96-122"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"THE ADVANCEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE NOW, OR THE HISTORY OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM\",\"authors\":\"CLIFFORD SISKIN\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/hith.12371\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n <p>What role should history play in the advancement of knowledge? Because it was so “hard,” so “unbelievably difficult … to get people to believe” in his <i>Great Renewal</i>, Francis Bacon thought a history of knowledge could provide evidence of advancement—a reason to “believe” and participate in his experiment. By indexing advancement, historians of knowledge could foster it. If Bacon were with us today, he would be happy to hear that the history of knowledge is a thriving enterprise. But upon reading our version, he would be dismayed to discover that advancement is nowhere to be found. It's the elephant in the room. That shouldn't surprise him or us—the great difficulty of <i>The Great Renewal</i> is that it always needs to be renewed—but this is a new kind of precarity. I call it friendly fire, because it's damage done not by those who wish to contain or undermine knowledge but by those whose purpose it is to produce and valorize it. Why, I ask in this article, is a volume that offers so much of value—<i>Information: A Historical Companion</i>—so unattuned to issues of advancement? Although occasioned by the current ubiquity of “information,” its focus is not on change—asking such questions as “why information?” and “why now?”—but on asserting the “belief” that “every age is an information age.” In a history built on that belief, change is relegated to subordinate clauses (“while recognizing changes over time”) and advancement isn't even on the table. I put it back on not by rejecting this companion but by providing a companion for it, one in which identifying and classifying change is the central task. I take two preparatory steps. First, I clarify how the concept of “culture” configures the agenda and the findings of Companion 1 while fencing out advancement. Second, I set the agenda for Companion 2 by specifying that the knowledge at stake in advancement is “explanatory knowledge.” I both address concerns about the notion of “progress” and provide a vocabulary for explanation highlighted by the concepts of “fit” and “reach.” Companion 2 then approaches the elephant from a number of angles, from a shift in information over four centuries from a matrix of currency to a matrix of possibility to the pacing of that change by a feature of the history of knowledge that I call the “sequence of surprise.” Since Bacon's highest hope for his history of knowledge was to make us better at advancing it, I conclude with a speculative turn to information's future, from Alan Turing's first use of the word “information” in its modern sense to a rethinking—through the history of knowledge—of the “hallucination” issue in our new forms of generative AI.</p>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47473,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"History and Theory\",\"volume\":\"64 1\",\"pages\":\"96-122\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"History and Theory\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hith.12371\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History and Theory","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hith.12371","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

历史在知识的进步中应该扮演什么角色?因为让人们相信他的伟大复兴是如此“困难”,如此“难以置信的困难”,弗朗西斯·培根认为知识的历史可以提供进步的证据——一个“相信”和参与他的实验的理由。通过索引进步,知识历史学家可以促进进步。如果培根今天和我们在一起,他会很高兴地听到,知识的历史是一项蓬勃发展的事业。但在阅读我们的版本后,他会沮丧地发现,进步无处可寻。这是房间里的大象。这不应该让他或我们感到惊讶——《伟大复兴》的最大困难在于它总是需要更新——但这是一种新的不稳定。我称之为“友军之火”,因为这种伤害不是由那些希望遏制或破坏知识的人造成的,而是由那些以创造和增值知识为目的的人造成的。我在这篇文章中问道,为什么一本提供了如此多价值的书——《信息:历史的伴侣》——与进步问题如此格格不入?尽管“信息”的普遍存在引起了人们的关注,但它的焦点并不是改变——而是问诸如“为什么是信息?”和“为什么是现在?”——而是坚信“每个时代都是信息时代”。在建立在这种信念基础上的历史中,改变被贬为从句(“随着时间的推移认识到变化”),进步甚至不在讨论范围之内。我不是通过拒绝这个伴侣,而是通过为它提供一个伴侣,在这个伴侣中,识别和分类变化是中心任务。我采取了两个准备步骤。首先,我澄清了“文化”的概念是如何配置议程和同伴1的发现,同时阻止了晋升。其次,我为《同伴2》设定了议程,明确了在发展过程中面临风险的知识是“解释性知识”。我既关注“进展”的概念,又提供了一个词汇表来解释“适合”和“达到”的概念。《同伴2》随后从多个角度探讨了大象,从四个世纪以来信息的变化,从货币矩阵到可能性矩阵,再到这种变化的节奏,这是知识历史的一个特征,我称之为“惊喜序列”。由于培根对他的知识历史的最高希望是让我们更好地推进它,我以一个对信息未来的推测来结束,从艾伦·图灵第一次在现代意义上使用“信息”这个词,到通过知识的历史重新思考我们新形式的生成人工智能中的“幻觉”问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
THE ADVANCEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE NOW, OR THE HISTORY OF KNOWLEDGE AND THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM

What role should history play in the advancement of knowledge? Because it was so “hard,” so “unbelievably difficult … to get people to believe” in his Great Renewal, Francis Bacon thought a history of knowledge could provide evidence of advancement—a reason to “believe” and participate in his experiment. By indexing advancement, historians of knowledge could foster it. If Bacon were with us today, he would be happy to hear that the history of knowledge is a thriving enterprise. But upon reading our version, he would be dismayed to discover that advancement is nowhere to be found. It's the elephant in the room. That shouldn't surprise him or us—the great difficulty of The Great Renewal is that it always needs to be renewed—but this is a new kind of precarity. I call it friendly fire, because it's damage done not by those who wish to contain or undermine knowledge but by those whose purpose it is to produce and valorize it. Why, I ask in this article, is a volume that offers so much of value—Information: A Historical Companion—so unattuned to issues of advancement? Although occasioned by the current ubiquity of “information,” its focus is not on change—asking such questions as “why information?” and “why now?”—but on asserting the “belief” that “every age is an information age.” In a history built on that belief, change is relegated to subordinate clauses (“while recognizing changes over time”) and advancement isn't even on the table. I put it back on not by rejecting this companion but by providing a companion for it, one in which identifying and classifying change is the central task. I take two preparatory steps. First, I clarify how the concept of “culture” configures the agenda and the findings of Companion 1 while fencing out advancement. Second, I set the agenda for Companion 2 by specifying that the knowledge at stake in advancement is “explanatory knowledge.” I both address concerns about the notion of “progress” and provide a vocabulary for explanation highlighted by the concepts of “fit” and “reach.” Companion 2 then approaches the elephant from a number of angles, from a shift in information over four centuries from a matrix of currency to a matrix of possibility to the pacing of that change by a feature of the history of knowledge that I call the “sequence of surprise.” Since Bacon's highest hope for his history of knowledge was to make us better at advancing it, I conclude with a speculative turn to information's future, from Alan Turing's first use of the word “information” in its modern sense to a rethinking—through the history of knowledge—of the “hallucination” issue in our new forms of generative AI.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
History and Theory
History and Theory Multiple-
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
9.10%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: History and Theory leads the way in exploring the nature of history. Prominent international thinkers contribute their reflections in the following areas: critical philosophy of history, speculative philosophy of history, historiography, history of historiography, historical methodology, critical theory, and time and culture. Related disciplines are also covered within the journal, including interactions between history and the natural and social sciences, the humanities, and psychology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信