The problem with the internet.

[Michelle420]

What I try to do is make the point logically then provide links to supporting documentation. I don't link to blogs and a link is not my whole post. They are not mutually exclusive. One can use logic and reason AND provide links.

What's wrong with blogs ?

Blogs are opinions, usually not by people who are any kind of authority ion the field they are blogging about. Many people use blogs as support for their arguments and that's fine, I just won't.

Theorists are also just people with educated opinions.

I was mostly just being jokey since I am a blogger

 

[PrometheusBound]

On the one hand, it keeps the cranks busy and off the streets.

On the other, it encourages the escalation of crankdom. It used to be the crank would rave a little at the bar or coffee shop, everyone ignored him, and that was it. Exposure to normal people took the edge off of his crankdom. Now, the crank can find always find a whole pack of fellow cranks online, to egg him on and reinforce his crankdom to ever greater heights.

What you describe as the old lifestyle of cranks is exactly the way I think of people with any intellectual authority or influence in this decadent society. Most of these famous pundits belong in bars, mumbling in the corner somewhere as some curiosity for the bored. Inferior people in superior positions keep out the only people who have a right to be there.

 

[flacaltenn]

One Ideal that has been dispelled is that broadcast news is always telling us the truth

There ya go.. One ABSOLUTE result is that we WERE living dangerously with the media controlled by 3 or 4 news orgs with access to the living room.. We NOW know that NO source is infallible.. CBS, NBC, ABC all caught with their pants down..

Then --- you got NICHE coverage of stories that might as well never have happened because the NYTimes would bury them in the back pages.

My strategy for using all these resources in a debate is to HARDLY EVER exclude or discount someone else's link or source.. If it's evil --- I'd rather have the fun of tearing it pieces. Because in all these forums --- we are REALLY weighing the truth and veracity and openness of the sources.. And in MANY CASES -- it's the source itself that needs to be vetted and analyzed.

PREDFAN --- There ARE right and wrongs, and truth and lies... We can't just "look it up".. We have to work at it..

 

[PredFan]

What's wrong with blogs ?

Blogs are opinions, usually not by people who are any kind of authority ion the field they are blogging about. Many people use blogs as support for their arguments and that's fine, I just won't.

Theorists are also just people with educated opinions.

I was mostly just being jokey since I am a blogger

Ok, I see the smilie now!
<facepalm>

 

[hjmick]

I'm old enough to have been here and sentient in the times before the internet. I remember when the only place for these kinds of discussions and debates was in what was called "newsgroups".

There was much discussion and anticipation about how access to information would affect society, and political debate. I remember thinking in those days that getting so many opinions from such a large number of people would lead to solving some problems, or at least some changed minds. Yes we were all that naive.

After the World Wide Web, as it was originally called, came into being we found that we could back up our statements with facts from individuals in authority on just about any subject. In this we were right BUT, as it turns out, the individuals in authority most often don't agree.

All branches of science, including the sciences of economics, psychology, history, medicine, and even the "pseudo-sciences" have a multitude of people putting their ideas, opinions, data, theories, and results out on the internet. You can find people in authority, people who have actual degrees in their fields who spount all kinds of ideas.

ANY internet blogger, or messageboard debater can find someone in authority who will back up anything they need. It doesn't matter what your stand is, you can believe in sasquatch and find a scientist who agrees, you can believe in exratereestrial visitation and find the same thing. Ditto with truthers, creationists, global warming believers, and on and on.

Now, my purpose of starting this thread is not to debate any of those topics that have been debated to death (without either side giving an inch), but to discuss whether access to so much information has actually helped anything.

Newsgroups... Shit...

I remember when the only place for these kinds of discussions and debates was in a coffee klatsch...

 

[PredFan]

One Ideal that has been dispelled is that broadcast news is always telling us the truth

There ya go.. One ABSOLUTE result is that we WERE living dangerously with the media controlled by 3 or 4 news orgs with access to the living room.. We NOW know that NO source is infallible.. CBS, NBC, ABC all caught with their pants down..

Then --- you got NICHE coverage of stories that might as well never have happened because the NYTimes would bury them in the back pages.

My strategy for using all these resources in a debate is to HARDLY EVER exclude or discount someone else's link or source.. If it's evil --- I'd rather have the fun of tearing it pieces. Because in all these forums --- we are REALLY weighing the truth and veracity and openness of the sources.. And in MANY CASES -- it's the source itself that needs to be vetted and analyzed.

PREDFAN --- There ARE right and wrongs, and truth and lies... We can't just "look it up".. We have to work at it..

Absolutely correct.

 

[PredFan]

Let me reiterate for those who have been led off on a side track and those who didn't bother to read the OP:

When the internet first opened up, there were a large contingent of us who believed that this would pool people together, and cut through much of the bull shit. It isn't turning out that way. Now, you can't even trust "experts" in anything or back up your positions with data anymore.

 

[PredFan]

I'm old enough to have been here and sentient in the times before the internet. I remember when the only place for these kinds of discussions and debates was in what was called "newsgroups".

There was much discussion and anticipation about how access to information would affect society, and political debate. I remember thinking in those days that getting so many opinions from such a large number of people would lead to solving some problems, or at least some changed minds. Yes we were all that naive.

After the World Wide Web, as it was originally called, came into being we found that we could back up our statements with facts from individuals in authority on just about any subject. In this we were right BUT, as it turns out, the individuals in authority most often don't agree.

All branches of science, including the sciences of economics, psychology, history, medicine, and even the "pseudo-sciences" have a multitude of people putting their ideas, opinions, data, theories, and results out on the internet. You can find people in authority, people who have actual degrees in their fields who spount all kinds of ideas.

ANY internet blogger, or messageboard debater can find someone in authority who will back up anything they need. It doesn't matter what your stand is, you can believe in sasquatch and find a scientist who agrees, you can believe in exratereestrial visitation and find the same thing. Ditto with truthers, creationists, global warming believers, and on and on.

Now, my purpose of starting this thread is not to debate any of those topics that have been debated to death (without either side giving an inch), but to discuss whether access to so much information has actually helped anything.

Newsgroups... Shit...

I remember when the only place for these kinds of discussions and debates was in a coffee klatsch...

I remember that, plus sending letters to the editor and opinion columns. I've been publiched in the local fish wrap three times.

I didn't see the point of going that far back.

 

[PrometheusBound]

Is it a great arena when the discussion leads to nothing?

For example:

If I agree with Theory X, and you disagree. I provide links to people in authority What is accomplished?

Links are what makes a chain, which holds together a chain gang. Try to support a point by logic instead of borrowing your ideas from the designated pre-owned authorities.

What I try to do is make the point logically then provide links to supporting documentation. I don't link to blogs and a link is not my whole post. They are not mutually exclusive. One can use logic and reason AND provide links.

I always consider sources to be inferior to me, so I use them to go deeper. For example, someone who describes Jackson's victory at New Orleans would be for me only a stepping stone to something that no source has realized. 1. It proved the superiority of the lower classes, which all Americans came from, to the aristocracy and that the privilege of inheritance must be abolished if we don't want to go through the disaster that aristocratic leadership brought to the British (700 dead to the Americans' 7 dead).

2. Could this be what Travis, Crockett, and Bowie were thinking would happen at the Alamo?

 

[flacaltenn]

What's wrong with blogs ?

Blogs are opinions, usually not by people who are any kind of authority ion the field they are blogging about. Many people use blogs as support for their arguments and that's fine, I just won't.

Theorists are also just people with educated opinions.

I was mostly just being jokey since I am a blogger

There is nothing wrong with blogs as research tools for web discussion..
They are the specialized LIBRARIANS of the internet..
I never expected a real librarian to answer direct questions about phase lock loops or evolution -- but they were the BEST way to start finding the answers.

Problem is that "political bloggers" are highly unreliable sources and shouldn't be used as
primary "proof" of anything political or social. Doesn't mean you cant' START with someone's research and opinion even for politics..

 

[flacaltenn]

I thank God everyday for the worst of the internet that remains such an attractant for the dummies..

So here's to ThinkProgress and SkepticalScience and all those other sludge pools of CONSISTENT propaganda and misinformation. They've given me MUCH fun and enjoyment lately smashing their last ounces of credibility.. HOPEFULLY, market forces will eventually serve them the proper death they deserve..

 

[PredFan]

Blogs are opinions, usually not by people who are any kind of authority ion the field they are blogging about. Many people use blogs as support for their arguments and that's fine, I just won't.

Theorists are also just people with educated opinions.

I was mostly just being jokey since I am a blogger

There is nothing wrong with blogs as research tools for web discussion..
They are the specialized LIBRARIANS of the internet..
I never expected a real librarian to answer direct questions about phase lock loops or evolution -- but they were the BEST way to start finding the answers.

Problem is that "political bloggers" are highly unreliable sources and shouldn't be used as
primary "proof" of anything political or social. Doesn't mean you cant' START with someone's research and opinion even for politics..

Well said.

 

[flacaltenn]

Links are what makes a chain, which holds together a chain gang. Try to support a point by logic instead of borrowing your ideas from the designated pre-owned authorities.

What I try to do is make the point logically then provide links to supporting documentation. I don't link to blogs and a link is not my whole post. They are not mutually exclusive. One can use logic and reason AND provide links.

I always consider sources to be inferior to me, so I use them to go deeper. For example, someone who describes Jackson's victory at New Orleans would be for me only a stepping stone to something that no source has realized. 1. It proved the superiority of the lower classes, which all Americans came from, to the aristocracy and that the privilege of inheritance must be abolished if we don't want to go through the disaster that aristocratic leadership brought to the British (700 dead to the Americans' 7 dead).

2. Could this be what Travis, Crockett, and Bowie were thinking would happen at the Alamo?

1) Yup -- 700 British one percentagers killed at N"Orleans by Jackson.. (I've been to his house --- Jackson's more 1% than not) He just spoke your language..
2) Of course --- they were only up against MOST of the largely illiterate and dirt poor army of Mexico.

No reply neccessary -- it's not on topic..

 

[PrometheusBound]

What I try to do is make the point logically then provide links to supporting documentation. I don't link to blogs and a link is not my whole post. They are not mutually exclusive. One can use logic and reason AND provide links.

What's wrong with blogs ?

Blogs are opinions, usually not by people who are any kind of authority ion the field they are blogging about..

You really got a mental block against admitting that you think authorities are superior. I've run into your kind of denial before. You think that of course authorities are superior to blogs or posters, so you can't believe that I would be referring to the inferiority of people in superior positions, which to you seems impossible. With you, I have to repeat that I'm not talking about authoriites disagreeing, but about their qualifications for their profession, which is just narrow-minded conformity. Their only talent is in adding twists to a knot of imbecility.

 

[PrometheusBound]

I'll take my theory on the delusion of Col. Travis at the Alamo as an example of why the Internet is not a pathway to freedom. Typically people will ask what is my source that he thought he was like Jackson at New Orleans, implying that it is impossible for any anonymous poster to think of anything on his own, only PhDs in history or military science could do that.

Another example is documentism. "Did Travis write a letter to the Commander in Chief, Sam Houston, explaining why he was disobeying Houston's order to get out of that trap?" Why couldn't I make a judgment on what he was thinking just because he didn't write it down? Etymologists refuse to believe the obvious derivation of the word dog just because it wasn't written down for 3,000 years, when hardly anyone knew how to write. So the self-appointed authorities only believe paper, which is as bad as copycat Netties believing in authorities at all. If they are right, it is only co-incidence. In fact, I actually do believe they are the worst source because they belong to conformist academic or ruling-class cults.

What is really revealing about this deception is that people think the Internet is independent and use the fact that the Mainstream Media say it is as authority that it is.

 

[PredFan]

What's wrong with blogs ?

Blogs are opinions, usually not by people who are any kind of authority ion the field they are blogging about..

You really got a mental block against admitting that you think authorities are superior. I've run into your kind of denial before. You think that of course authorities are superior to blogs or posters, so you can't believe that I would be referring to the inferiority of people in superior positions, which to you seems impossible. With you, I have to repeat that I'm not talking about authoriites disagreeing, but about their qualifications for their profession, which is just narrow-minded conformity. Their only talent is in adding twists to a knot of imbecility.

You haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about. I pointed out to you that I never stated that authorities are superior, in fact I stated the opposite and I did it repeatedly. What exactly IS your problem? Can you not understand what you read or do you not bother to read?

 

[PredFan]

I'll take my theory on the delusion of Col. Travis at the Alamo as an example of why the Internet is not a pathway to freedom. Typically people will ask what is my source that he thought he was like Jackson at New Orleans, implying that it is impossible for any anonymous poster to think of anything on his own, only PhDs in history or military science could do that.

Another example is documentism. "Did Travis write a letter to the Commander in Chief, Sam Houston, explaining why he was disobeying Houston's order to get out of that trap?" Why couldn't I make a judgment on what he was thinking just because he didn't write it down? Etymologists refuse to believe the obvious derivation of the word dog just because it wasn't written down for 3,000 years, when hardly anyone knew how to write. So the self-appointed authorities only believe paper, which is as bad as copycat Netties believing in authorities at all. If they are right, it is only co-incidence. In fact, I actually do believe they are the worst source because they belong to conformist academic or ruling-class cults.

What is really revealing about this deception is that people think the Internet is independent and use the fact that the Mainstream Media say it is as authority that it is.

In a round about way, you are making my point dumbass.

 

[Politico]

Annnnd I rest my case.

 

[PredFan]

Annnnd I rest my case.

I had to go back to look and see what your post was.

 

[whitehall]

It's not just the internet. The information age has eclipsed the education system. Kids don't have to read books and take notes in order to put a report together. All they need to do is tippy tap on their personal information machine and copy stuff that tends to make the teacher happy. The education system teaches kids to come up with information but it doesn't teach them how to think. Politicians and the advertising agencies as well as Hollywood are well aware of the lack of thought process in the general public and they sell us junk and policies (and people) we don't need because we have become overwhelmed with information but too stupid to think.

And there is that as well.

As well? Pop culture education is the freaking source of the problem. Kids know about putting a condom on a banana but they can't seem to logically figure out right from wrong.