“Don’t Blame Google for Ignorance” is the title of a post from the New York Times “Idea of the Day.”
“Some say rapid Internet search is killing general knowledge, the retention of key facts, from capital cities to historic dates — long the marker of an educated mind.” Yet another way in which the Internet is dumbing us down.
The blog quotes a journalism professor, Brian Cathcart of Kingston University in London, who disagrees. Knowledge, he says, and what kinds of knowledge we need to have, are essentially moving targets, “a society’s pool of shared knowledge is ever-changing.”
And the targets have moved throughout history. Cathcart points out that when printing with movable type was invented in the 15th century, there were predictions of doom, of the death of knowledge. In fact, to the contrary, the printing press increased the reach of knowledge and facilitated an expansion of knowledge greater than any invention since the development of standardized writing.
And speaking of writing, almost exactly 1,000 years before Gutenberg, Socrates weighed in against that then fairly new invention (he never wrote anything down himself, we have Plato to thank for transcribing his arguments). The reason? It would lead to wrong belief and misguided opinion. Writing, as opposed to oral discourse, would enable people to find ideas and opinions and think about them all on their own without guidance from a wise mentor — like, maybe, Socrates.
So, just to summarize here: In around 400 BCE, some of us worried about unchaperoned access to written knowledge and opinion. In 1460 or so AD, some of us worried about universal, unchaperoned access to printed knowledge and opinion. And now, in 2009, some of us worry about an “unmoderated” Internet, the etherized spread of knowledge and opinion.
It’s a 2,000-year trend. How on earth will ordinary people be able to tell the Internet weeds from the good stuff? Should we worry?
Images: Johannes Gutenberg, Encyclopedia Britannica Online, Jacques Louis David, "The Death of Socrates," Metropolitan Museum of Art.
Posts
It's all in how you use it. I think it's great that I can easily look up a piece of information or verify some random triva. But, I know to trust only legitimate sources on the Internet. And I wouldn't count on the Internet as my only source of information. I diversify my intake with various tv programs and written sources.
ReplyDeleteRight. All it takes is a little old fashioned critical thinking.
ReplyDeleteI find it fascinating to see the historical perspectives on cultural change, whether it is the invention of writing, printing press, etc.
ReplyDeleteSometimes we accurately predict the outcomes, but often we are completely wrong, or there are things that we don't even anticipate nor can imagine.
Have you guys all seen this? Trina's blog reminded me of it.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQHX-SjgQvQ
I remember when I was in college and preferred searching through books at the library to just typing in what I needed on the computer. I still like books, but now I bring up the library's website to order just what I need.
I guess you could say I've evolved...
Memoirs --
ReplyDeleteThanks for reminding us of that very funny video.
Memoirs, what a hilarious video, thanks for sharing!
ReplyDeleteI rely on Google for everything: research, phone numbers, maps, mathematical solutions, translations, even spelling (if I don't know how to spell something, I type it into Google's search bar and wait for it to ask me, "Did you mean...?" Why yes, I did mean that! Thanks Google!) But although I find Google to be an invaluable resource, I hate feeling so reliant on it at the same time. There is no more, "I wonder..." in my life. Now, if I want to know something, I just look it up and that's that. Gone is my imagination and my critical thinking skills.
Some people make the argument that Google is going to make specialized study obsolete-- after all, with a few clicks of a button you can easily plug in whatever information you need at any given moment.
ReplyDeleteIt is a silly way to look at Google. I like Google because it helps me fill in the gaps in my memory-- and it's highly useful for this. When it comes to old poems or news stories, my recollection is rarely sufficient. Google is invaluable as an extension of my long-term memory.
What Google does not do well, however, is provide the sort of base knowledge a person needs in order to write about a particular topic. If you don't know the first thing about rebuilding an engine, Google probably isn't going to be any more valuable than the public library when your head gasket blows (whatever a "head gasket" is.)
Rob --
ReplyDeleteYes, Google is invaluable for the failing memory syndrome, particularly since eventually, we forget everything that we once knew (or at least I do). Does everybody know Father Guido Sarducci's Five Minute University? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO8x8eoU3L4
For learning new stuff, give me a good book.
Jenn --
ReplyDeleteHow sad. Do get some "I wonder . . ." back in your life.
Oops. I meant Nicole, how sad. . .
ReplyDelete