This work analyses how the theme of the creation of thinking machines by man, particularly through artificial intelligence, is dealt with on stage, with reference to three plays addressing different topics and characterised by different types of performance. This analysis reveals the particular effectiveness of plays dealing with scientific topics, when the relationship between theatre and science results in reflections transcending the boundaries of its contents to address man and his essence and gives voice to the ancient question of the sense of the world.
Communicating modern biotechnologies is certainly no easy task. To tackle such a complex and future-oriented assignment, help may arrive, paradoxically, from the past, from ancient rhetorical tradition, and in particular from Aristotle, the most renowned rhetoric teacher of all time. In his Rhetoric, Aristotle suggested that to be persuasive speakers should make use of widely accepted opinions (endoxa), i.e. the common sense shared by all. Common sense is expressed in common truths and value-laden maxims. Common sense, however, is not flat but dialectical, in that it includes contrasting
Popularising mathematics requires a preliminary reflection on language and terms, the choice of which results from underlying dynamics. The aim of this article is to start an overall analysis of the conditions influencing this linguistic choice.
According to Einstein’s renowned declaration, for those who believe in physics – or, more precisely, in its capability to offer a “scientific” representation of the world – the distinction between present, past and future is just “an illusion, though obstinate”. If we consider an effective analogy by Mauro Dorato, we can state that those who agree with the famous German scientist will recognize in the present, past and future a relationship very similar to that between “here” and “somewhere else” – in other words, the present is just a located moment and has no privileged status. In other
What may be defined as the "standard model" of the public communication of science began to develop in the second half of the nineteenth century, gained a clear structure (especially in an Anglo-Saxon context) in the first three decades of the twentieth century and dominated until the nineties. Roughly speaking, the model tends to describe science as a compact social (and epistemic) corpus, largely separated from the rest of society by a type of semipermeable membrane. That is, information and actions can flow freely from science to the rest of society (through the application of technologies
It is often said that a new era is beginning, one that is founded on knowledge, thus envisaging a new society, founded on information. Meanwhile, technological innovation already characterises our daily lives and our vision of the world: no past generation saw their surroundings change so quickly and deeply as we do.
This paper describes how a universal language for notating dance and, more generally, movement was elaborated, known as "Kinetography Laban", or rather "Labanotation". It was devised by choreographer and movement theorist Rudolf von Laban, who outlined it for the first time in 1928, in the journal Schrifttanz. His system differs from precedent notation systems in that Labanotation is rigorous and universal, as it is based not on one particular style or technique but on the general of kinetics underlying human motion. Its geometrical and abstract symbols also free it from language constraints
Ever since Galileo's time, scientists have been interested in how to create a perfect language capable of supporting communication at a horizontal level i.e. within the scientific community, and at a vertical level, i.e. between scientists and the public. Special attention will be spent on the mathematicians' role, especially Giuseppe Peano's. The Italian mathematician played a leading role in the creation of a perfect language, both at a horizontal and a vertical level. On the one hand, there is his successful attempt to introduce a standard logical and symbolic system of notation, which
DATE:
TEAM MEMBERS:
Daniele GouthierNico PitrelliIvan Pupolizo
The aim of this project is to communicate the basic laws of particle physics with Feynman diagrams - visual tools which represent elementary particle processes. They were originally developed as a code to be used by physicists and are still used today for calculations and elaborations of theoretical nature. The technical and mathematical rules of Feynman diagrams are obviously the exclusive concern of physicists, but on a pictorial level they can help to popularize many concepts, ranging from matter and the antimatter; the creation, destruction and transformation of particles; the role of
Theatrical action can bring out the value of the exhibits of a museum, while creating a new way of experiencing the exhibitions. Theatrical actions link education and entertainment, consequently becoming a highly effective didactic instrument. The advantages of theatre are briefly outlined, considering it as an interpretative technique to communicate science from the point of view of the goals pursued by museums, of epistemology and of theatrical research.
Traditionally, collaborative technologies are intended to directly support joint, collaborative activity, taking their cues from communication and media. Here, empirical findings are presented about the types of information needs associated with the formation of a knowledge-building community among professional learning technology researchers. Several issues are outlined in designing, facilitating, supporting, and measuring knowledge-building activity in such as community of practice. It is argued that, rather than communication tools, a knowledge-building community is better served by
This chapter discusses learning through the manipulation of three-dimensional objects. The opportunity to touch and interact with objects is helpful for young children as they attempt to understand abstract concepts and processes. How might parents guide children in coming to understand the complex and abstract symbolic nature of representational objects?