Fuzzy Logic: Computers, Education, and Language in a Techno-Illogical World
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article disrupts the logic of the “just-a-tool” argument, a powerful rhetorical device commonly offered as a rationale for using computers in education (and health care and other areas of society). Although this argument is articulated in many ways, its essence is the contention that computers are merely instructional tools, like blackboards or pencils, that can be used to enhance learning and therefore should be used in classrooms. The just-a-tool argument is difficult to challenge because it automatically constructs counterarguments as illogical; they necessarily become arguments against using technology to improve the human condition. However, an analysis of the just-a-tool argument reveals that far from being logical and unassailable, it is both invalid and unsound. This “techno-illogic,” as the author calls it, arises when wisdom is subjugated to the dictates of technological “rationality,” and it is something that people must learn to recognize and defend against.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".