Comparing and Contrasting the Forms of Knowledge-Production on Display

Student Name
Instructor
Course
Date
Compare and Contrast Knowledge Production
Introduction
The algorithmic form of knowledge production is differentiated from the heuristic form mainly through the way information is collected. As indicated, the heuristic form of knowledge production entails or is greatly dependent on the creator of the knowledge. However, algorithmic is greatly dependent on what is “observable and repeatable by others who should come to the exact same conclusion” (Spencer, 28). What the above indicates or shows is that algorithmic knowledge production is greatly objective, although Spencer (28) warns of the unlikelihood of any model or form of knowledge production being “purely subjective or objective.”
Algorithmic form of Knowledge Production
In the article titled ‘A Treatise Concerning the Properties and Effects of Coffee,’ the form of knowledge production greatly exhibited is algorithmic, mainly because the author is speaking out of what was observed and not what appeals to the subject. There is nothing being created or under the control of the subject. All that is being shared is out of observations that have been made over time. For example, the author speaks of the soil and climate of Jamaica being “particularly adapted for the growth of this commodity” (Moseley, xvi). Such a statement cannot be made without close observation of the soil type as well as the climate for a long time. One has to redo the entire process over and over again before one can come to such a conclusion. Thus, this piece of information qualifies as algorithmic knowledge production and represents one aspect of distinguishing the two sources as examples of European knowledge production from the beginning and end of the modern era.
Aside from the above, other instances that help to reveal bits of algorithmic knowledge production in Moseley’s article include the revelation that coffee has medicinal value or attributes. Moseley (7) captures the comments made by Leonhart Rauwolff, who said, “They have a very pleasant drink, called Chaube, which is almost as black as ink. It is good for illness, chiefly that of the stomach.” Another observation that has been made by Moseley (9) comes through Avicenna’s words who said that coffee “strengthens the limbs, cleanses the skin, and dries up the watery humours; gives an agreeable ordour to the body, prevents the hair from falling, and is good for the stomach.” Such information aptly captures the essence of algorithmic knowledge production because it is made from observatory instances. The creators of such knowledge are years apart, but they all came to the same conclusion. Moseley’s capture of this knowledge helps to reveal the time difference on when they were gathered. Also, as already mentioned, algorithmic knowledge production has to be repeatable with similar conclusions in the end. The observations made concerning coffee aptly captures the essence of algorithmic knowledge production discussed above. Different observers came to the same conclusion of coffee being or having certain medicinal values. These conclusions were not only observable but also repeatable, which is unlike the subje...