Posted on 08/03/2008 7:50:33 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
While on a recent vacation, a reader sent me this message:
If this makes sense, write an article on why it's stupid to use dictionaries in hardcore religion debates (I remember Dictionary.com was used in a "faith" argument I was in).
I see people refute concepts of omnipotence and faith by using dictionaries. I'm sick of it, and I would like it if you would write about this issue.
I received this message while at a public library in North Carolina, and somewhat ironically, saw as I exited a cover story for Atlantic Monthly that fit right in with this query objecting to the use of things like dictionaries for complex debates. Author Nicholas Carr's article was titled, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" -- and it has some intriguing relevance for apologetics.
Let me say to begin that neither I nor Carr say that Google "makes us stupid" in the sense that it is directly responsible for stupidity. Google is really no different functionally than Boolean search engines used by professional researchers like myself (such as the DIALOG databases). The point rather is that Google and other engines have become tools that have further enabled those who were already predisposed to be lazy.
[SNIP]
And therein lies the problem, as well as the problem with Wikipedia and numerous other sources: People like these want a "short answer." In turn, therein lies a problem for apologists: Such as these do not want to read detailed answers, as produced here or by sources like the ThinkTank; much less something as ponderous as an N. T. Wright volume. No, these want an answer in a can -- so when it comes down to them deciding who makes the better case, how well informed will their decision be? They will decide who is right based on who makes the most powerful sound bite, or makes the best emotional appeal -- not based on whose arguments are more detailed or more informed.
[SNIP]
Speaking as an information professional who has used databases with quick-search capacity for decades, I will again emphasize that this is not a problem with Google but with the people who use it. I do agree that these engines can be a "godsend" in the way Carr describes -- for example, I have used Google to find quotes many times, or to make it easier to locate something. But the error lies in thinking that ALL research is able to be done this way. It cannot be. Finding a "pithy quote" is not the same as understanding the patronage model of the Greco-Roman world. The former can be done, and lierally done, with Google. The latter cannot be. But too many people have allowed their mental habits to deteriorate such that they think that the two tasks are equal.
[SNIP]
Carr relates the experiences of others who have said that the more they use the Internet, the less focus they have had, such that one of his friends, formerly a "voracious book reader," has now "stopped reading books altogether." Another says that he cannot even read a blog post of more than three or four paragraphs without skimming, because it is "too much to absorb." Admittedly, Carr says, this is anecdotal evidence. And my own evidence is anecdotal and/or based on experience; I have encountered people like "Arthur" so often these past few years that one may rightly suspect that some sort of breeding program has gone badly awry. Yet this experience is not without precedent or support: Carr notes an academic study that found that online readers do more skimming than depth reading. I should issue a caveat here as well: There are valid reasons to skim, or to just read abstracts, or lead paragraphs; I do this myself, in order to determine whether a source contains information I need. But this has to do with targeted research to find out what will give an answer, once it is read in depth. Skimming is NOT something that should be done once we have our depth resource in hand.
[SNIP]
The result of this loss of capacity, in terms of what apologists encounter, is manifest. People think that dictionaries and Wikipedia settle the argument. They think they can just deliver one-liners that refute detailed articles or argumentw. They select just one paragraph to address from large articles and ignore the rest. They resort to canned canards such as "that source is biased" or "it is intolerant to say I am wrong" because real legwork is beyond them. Google has truly "made them stoopid."
bump
| Osama Edit... Ignore all Add to dictionary |
The people deserve the answer they get with Google. The sad part is ‘their’ laziness cost the remainder of us the truth.
Yup...it all started with the wheel. We got lazier and lazier.
I don’t have time to plod through this entire article. Can somebody just distill this to a paragraph or less for the rest of us?
Most of the time when I’m googling something I’m not looking for just the overview rather than a deeply researched knowledge of the topic. Before the internet I would have either checked an encyclopedia article (about which I heard the same complaints) or just not bothered. Maybe I would have grabbed a topic specific book if I were doing something like trying to find the energy density of gasoline vs ethanol (probably my CRC Chemistry & Physics Handbook in that case), but I wouldn’t have read a full book on oxidation of alkanes and alcohols just to get a couple of numbers.
It’s more info than I can absorb..... is there a Wikipedia summary available? /s
:^)
The ease of writing and editing documents has made it easier for authors to produce a large amount of words instead of focused though. Being a math type I think of it as a word to thought ratio. This article did not have the problem of to many words and not enough thought.
I had a manager send out a memo once that after five paragraphs I knew that it was important and I needed to respond by doing something. What I had to do was clear to me then as it is to you now.
Many people skim now to find out what they need to know with out all the extra words that don't add to understanding of the content. And them some are just lazy.
The dilemma lies in the fact that in our desire to get to the truth we must expend increasing amounts of time and energy. Since time and energy is a finite quantity it must be rationed accordingly.
We then have a choice.
We can either know more and more about less and less until we know absolutely everything about nothing.
Or we can know less and less about more and more until we know absolutely nothing about everything.
I think this summary says it all :
The problem is not Google, but people. Google has made them stoopid, but not without their full consent. In light of the shallowness of thinking that permeates our discussions, however ... Deep reading makes for deep thinking. What do you suppose shallow reading makes for, then?
“I don’t have time to plod through this entire article. Can somebody just distill this to a paragraph or less for the rest of us?”
You hit the nail on the head. Insert Google into the mix, and that’s exactly what the article is talking about.
Depends on how you use the information gained via Google. I Google a lot, but I don’t take the info found there or here to be the whole truth, but a starting point or guide to material of the fuller truth.
That being said, I cannot read long articles on the computer. I can only do that in printed form like a print out from the printer or a book. If an article is to long then the subject matter was to broad and needs to be narrowed down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.