Two purpose, Two efficiency.

http://q.hatena.ne.jp/1211450703

I answered yesterday.
my answer looks to be satisfy for the questioner the most.

Two purpose, Two efficiency.

and I thought the difference of between "web arguments" and "academic argument".

At first, we can confirm the difference of the two arguments is depend on the degree for referring previous researches.
Blog or someones argument on the web is allowed to discuss without refer previous research. Instead, if it is not interesting or not exciting kind of article, it will be ignored by everyone. whether the article is the re-invention of wheels or not is not important problem. On web argument, same thing, same opinion is allowed for everyone . While, Academic argument system emphasise on the connectivity of previous researches. if someones article can't connect previous researches, that article is considered "awful article".

why such kind of differ emerged ? Probably, it concern about the two system "efficiency".
The most important efficiency for academic argument system is not to back or re-wind the argument. Academic system purpose is the making achieve for all of human. On the other hand, web argument system don't has such kind of purpose. the most important efficiently for web argument system is depend on the situation. Frequently, it's for enlightenment or for launch for some of the argument....

I want not to assess academic system is more significant than web argument system. It problem has to consider in accordance with the situation. such as, argument about new phenomenon will be able to achieve good argument on the web. If it has not to connect previous argument archive web argument system, I feel the argument speed and quality is tremendous.

[MEMO] What is the society

now i am thinking the basic question. at first in my life.some people will be feel why didn't I think about this question. the answer is easy : "I am not sociologist".it is one of the truth about myself. but now, i have to imagine to teach "sociology" for university students, so i imagine the question at first on my life (-:)


[Basic issue for think about "society"]


"Society" has some aspects, we have to check the problem.


---[1.Society is real existence or not ?] ----------


Real : Durkheim

Image : Max Weber, Benedict Richard O'Gorman Anderson , (Michel Foucault)


(ref:the relation of the expression and realization)


Does "Society" have some name? such as "American Society", "Japanese Society", "Chinese Society", "India Society" e.t.c....ordinary, people use the words. Do you think whether the usage is good way ? In my thought, that way is not best. but if you can't use these word, you will become impossible to point out something. In other words, you can use these word. Again ask the question The idea of "Society" has real existence or not ? That answer up to the word of "real". Let's imagine, video game "Sim-city", or African map or some vague thing. You know, this world constitute by gradation. Can you find the obvious border of a mountain and a canyon ? Or, can you classify all of stone into rock and pebble ? These are so hard. We can't distinguish mountain and canyon perfectly. But we can imagine mountain and canyon. It is "concept".We have to comprehend many kind of concepts have excess and deficiency. And, some kind of words include a lot of excess or deficiency. Especially, words connecting society has big excess or deficiency. but we use the words "American Society", "Japanese Society".


---[ 2.is that the namely "grouping of individuals" ? Are there some size group and society?] ----


Micro : Erving GoffmanMacro : Niklas Luhmann, Talcott Parsons


---[3.is this "social system" ? ]---


-mereology,
-system-path dependency : Max Weber
-Talcott Parsons-Niklas Luhmann : social system-Immanuel Wallerstein : World system
Society has enormous module and that combination. Society is changing every day. If any great sociologist were to revive from 100 years ago. He/She will be unable to mention his/her nation adequately.


---[4. That aspect is clarified by statistics ? fieldwork ? or others ?]----


-Statistics : Pierre Bourdieu, Lazarsfeld-Fieldwork : Paul E. Willis

Two side of diversity

"Does diversity make something new one ?"
http://www.nakahara-lab.net/blog/2008/05/post_1252.html

I agree to the skepticism for diversity. In Japan, There are innumerable naive confession to believe diversity. his dealing issue is very good point, I think.
though I agree his point, I looks like his article mixed some difficult point.
his insist can summarize this

• Point1: the concept of diversity is not perfect goodness.
• Point2: "Always diversity makes something new one" is false
• Point3: for example, conversation based on diversity is not always efficient.
  

I agree these 3 point. but I consider, if he wants to mention for diversity and the value, he write to about the relation about Point1 and Point2. It goes without saying that the relationship about diversity and innovation(Point2) is not same problem the relationship diversity and goodness(Point1). Point2 is only subset of Point1. if he want to show an objection for that problem more strongly, he must not connect the innovation and goodness.
if we mention about diversity, that includes various value. such as, biological diversity, political diversity, cultural diversity....it concern about the rightness for diver things.
when we argue the issue of diversity, the 2 goodness -- efficient innovation and the rightness -- confuse frequently. but we have to think about the both aspect, if we want mention diversity.