The age of Misinformation Overload?

[Flames Fan, Ph.D.]

As the ease of retrieval and magnitude of information available increases, it requires an increased level of humility amongst its consumers.

It's not the information's fault.

[NuclearFart]

Originally Posted by Ex libris

Have to disagree with this - any decent library will have a large selection of online encyclopedias, reviewed/checked websites, online periodical databases, etc. that will provide accurate online information. Plus, library staff are all (or should all be) trained in how to do online research and to show that to people who just want to google everything.

The sad thing is, in the school where I used to work, students were allowed to use google and wikipedia for all of their research - there was absolutely no interest in teaching them how to properly do online research.

I agree completely (and I often use the online library facilities), but I was speaking from my sense of how the general public views the library. Outside of your school social circle, how many people do you know who have used a library's resources in the last 5 years, to find an answer to something? It's so much easier to just Google it for the average joe.

[Northendzone]

Originally Posted by Phanuthier

Topic at hand... yes... I think the next "big" sites coming out will be high-quality Q&A. One of my friends is involved in a startup for that (Quora) with the target being, only useful answers are kept and negative contributors eventually just die away. (somewhat elitest, but c'est la vie)

If this was applied to CP we would reduce the number of posts by ~85%

[Itse]

I think the only real difference that the increased amount of media has caused is that people can now live almost entirely in a news bubble where all their input of the world is filtered through a certain world view. These days a lot of people only read news their social media shows for example.

As the search engines and social media filters are growing "smarter" this effect is only getting stronger. Everything we see is increasingly "designed" to strengthen our pre-existing views. (There's a good TED talk about the "filter bubble": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8ofWFx525s)

EDIT:
Funnily enough, places like CP, where people gather (virtually) for reasons mostly unrelated to their other interests or beliefs are in my eyes becoming the better places for discussion in the internet, simply because the "bubble" effect doesn't work as strongly here.

(Of course, some people also only have hobbies that are dominated with like-minded people.)

[Ex libris]

Originally Posted by NuclearFart

I agree completely (and I often use the online library facilities), but I was speaking from my sense of how the general public views the library. Outside of your school social circle, how many people do you know who have used a library's resources in the last 5 years, to find an answer to something? It's so much easier to just Google it for the average joe.

Unfortunately you are quite correct!

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Ex libris

Have to disagree with this - any decent library will have a large selection of online encyclopedias, reviewed/checked websites, online periodical databases, etc. that will provide accurate online information. Plus, library staff are all (or should all be) trained in how to do online research and to show that to people who just want to google everything.

The sad thing is, in the school where I used to work, students were allowed to use google and wikipedia for all of their research - there was absolutely no interest in teaching them how to properly do online research.

i've been out of school now for 8 years, and in my experience in the workplace Google and/or Wikipedia have been the answer for many job related problems or questions i've had. i've never felt the need to hit a library or do "proper online research". sure if you're an historian or lawyer, sitting in a library performing well documented research is going to be important, but for the majority of people there's nothing wrong with Google

[SebC]

It took a while, but eventually I trained my mother to look things up on Snopes before forwarding them to me. Problem solved!

[Ex libris]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

i've been out of school now for 8 years, and in my experience in the workplace Google and/or Wikipedia have been the answer for many job related problems or questions i've had. i've never felt the need to hit a library or do "proper online research". sure if you're an historian or lawyer, sitting in a library performing well documented research is going to be important, but for the majority of people there's nothing wrong with Google

Of course there's nothing wrong with Google - I was responding to the point in the OP where I thought he was saying (I misunderstood his point) that libraries are an irrelevant place to find information now.

[Cube Inmate]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

More is infinitely better.

The truth for one person is not necessarily the truth for another . . . . . so if that's the argument then you're into the sticky business of deciding what the truth is and who gets to decide.

It's much better to make all information available to everyone and let them decide on their own version of "truth." And, in the world today, almost regardless of where you are, you have access to a wide variety of information and a broad range of opinions on what the truth is.
<snip>
Cowperson

I hate to argue with you, since you're nearly always right, but I think you've failed to make an important distinction between "truth" and "fact." As Indiana Jones once said, if you're looking for "truth" there's a philosophy class just down the hall. If you're looking for fact, then you can only look for irrefutable, unambiguous data.

One needs to be able to draw the distinction between fact and fiction...facts and opinion...and then be prepared to use facts to draw his own opinions. In the vast majority of news media today (and since the beginning of print), facts are usually interwoven with opinions and "truths" that the writers or editors hold to be self-evident. The publishers have every right to do that. If I'm the publisher of a website, I reserve the right to censor anything that's not factual. If I simultaneously decide to allow certain people's interpretation of "truth" but censor others' opinions, then I suppose I've crossed the line from being a repository of "fact" to one of opinion.

I challenge anyone to come up with a website that's entirely factual in nature. Everything has opinion woven in. It's up to the user to determine what's what...but it's a difficult distinction. Critical thinking is an uncommon skill. I don't think that's anything new...it's just becoming more and more apparent now that everyone with a critical thinking deficit is able to have their opinions and beliefs published on the web.

But I ramble...

[freedogger]

Replace "Internet" with "Printing Press"

from wikipedia

"In Renaissance Europe, the arrival of mechanical movable type printing introduced the era of mass communication which permanently altered the structure of society: The relatively unrestricted circulation of information and (revolutionary) ideas transcended borders, captured the masses in the Reformation and threatened the power of political and religious authorities; the sharp increase in literacy broke the monopoly of the literate elite on education and learning and bolstered the emerging middle class. Across Europe, the increasing cultural self-awareness of its peoples led to the rise of proto-nationalism, accelerated by the flowering of the European vernacular languages to the detriment of Latin's status as lingua franca.[10]"

[Flamesguy_SJ]

Seems like a good place for this:

[llama64]

Originally Posted by freedogger

Replace "Internet" with "Printing Press"

from wikipedia

"In Renaissance Europe, the arrival of mechanical movable type printing introduced the era of mass communication which permanently altered the structure of society: The relatively unrestricted circulation of information and (revolutionary) ideas transcended borders, captured the masses in the Reformation and threatened the power of political and religious authorities; the sharp increase in literacy broke the monopoly of the literate elite on education and learning and bolstered the emerging middle class. Across Europe, the increasing cultural self-awareness of its peoples led to the rise of proto-nationalism, accelerated by the flowering of the European vernacular languages to the detriment of Latin's status as lingua franca.[10]"

I'd argue the "Occupy" movement is the first real expression of this in current day times, however awkward and misconstrued the ideas became (I'm sure this will be the focus of many Masters in the years to come...).

Where the printing press led to the overthrow of the Catholic Church's power and the rise of the nation state, the internet seems to be propagating neoliberialism and countering the concept of nations (annecdotal, my perspective). Wonder if the actual properties of the media influence the difference (Mcluhan), or if it's just accelerating and coalescing existing trends within societies around the world.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

I hate to argue with you, since you're nearly always right, but I think you've failed to make an important distinction between "truth" and "fact." As Indiana Jones once said, if you're looking for "truth" there's a philosophy class just down the hall. If you're looking for fact, then you can only look for irrefutable, unambiguous data.

One needs to be able to draw the distinction between fact and fiction...facts and opinion...and then be prepared to use facts to draw his own opinions. In the vast majority of news media today (and since the beginning of print), facts are usually interwoven with opinions and "truths" that the writers or editors hold to be self-evident. The publishers have every right to do that. If I'm the publisher of a website, I reserve the right to censor anything that's not factual. If I simultaneously decide to allow certain people's interpretation of "truth" but censor others' opinions, then I suppose I've crossed the line from being a repository of "fact" to one of opinion.

I challenge anyone to come up with a website that's entirely factual in nature. Everything has opinion woven in. It's up to the user to determine what's what...but it's a difficult distinction. Critical thinking is an uncommon skill. I don't think that's anything new...it's just becoming more and more apparent now that everyone with a critical thinking deficit is able to have their opinions and beliefs published on the web.

But I ramble...

I kill me

http://www.hasbro.com/games/en_US/trivialpursuit/

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Cube Inmate

I hate to argue with you, since you're nearly always right, but I think you've failed to make an important distinction between "truth" and "fact." As Indiana Jones once said, if you're looking for "truth" there's a philosophy class just down the hall. If you're looking for fact, then you can only look for irrefutable, unambiguous data.

One needs to be able to draw the distinction between fact and fiction...facts and opinion...and then be prepared to use facts to draw his own opinions. In the vast majority of news media today (and since the beginning of print), facts are usually interwoven with opinions and "truths" that the writers or editors hold to be self-evident. The publishers have every right to do that. If I'm the publisher of a website, I reserve the right to censor anything that's not factual. If I simultaneously decide to allow certain people's interpretation of "truth" but censor others' opinions, then I suppose I've crossed the line from being a repository of "fact" to one of opinion.

I challenge anyone to come up with a website that's entirely factual in nature. Everything has opinion woven in. It's up to the user to determine what's what...but it's a difficult distinction. Critical thinking is an uncommon skill. I don't think that's anything new...it's just becoming more and more apparent now that everyone with a critical thinking deficit is able to have their opinions and beliefs published on the web.

But I ramble...

I do not think we are disagreeing.

A normal human being will seek out the warm blanket of facts that reinforce what they already believe . . . . and the internet is one rather fantastic place to do that. Its called confirmation Bias.

Given the wide availability of virtually every fact and hordes of opinions analyzing and giving meaning to those facts, mixed in with normal human nature to seek out facts and opinions that reinforce our biases, we should probably not be surprised at the rampant partisanship we see these days.

I would suggest a "critical thinking deficit" is actually a pretty normal condition. No one is without bias.

As to the treatment of "fact" versus "truth," two people with varying pre-opinions about something can view the same facts and come to different conclusions as to meaning. A famous study is here: http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~jpiliavi/965/hwang.pdf

I put a glass of water in front of you. Is the glass half full or is it half empty? A simple question about a simple, visual fact. Yet we could easily disagree on the answer.

Humanity is pretty fun.

Cowperson

[peakoil]

Some doctors have expressed concerns over ultrasound safety. Dr. Sarah Buckley expresses major concerns in her article, "Ultrasound Scans: Cause for Concern," which can be found online at www.birthlove.com/free/ultrasound.html. In this article, Dr. Buckley reviews ultrasound research, pro and con, and the value of routine prenatal ultrasound. As a result of her research, Dr. Buckley and her partner (also a doctor), chose not to have ultrasound scans in her four pregnancies, but also presents guidelines for those women who do choose to have ultrasounds during their pregnancies. Pukluk, you may be out of your league, like when Kevin Smith tried to write a movie with an actual premise and plot instead of stoners sitting around and talking about nothing.

Cap Crunch-what are the names of the books you find so offensive? Because last time I checked, Dr. Judy Wood and Henri Franzoni were smarter than you.

llama64-The Catholic Church has less power than it did before the printing press? Allright!P.A.M.P.!