so I’d like to begin with an excerpt
from a book by Neil whose technology is
a state of culture it is also a state of
mind it consists in the deification of
technology which means that the culture
seeks its authorization in technology
finds its assess action in technology
and takes his orders this requires the
development of a new kind of social
order and a necessity leads to the rapid
dissolution of much that is associated
with traditional beliefs one way of
defining technology then is to say it is
what happens to a society when the
defenses against information what who’s
what happens when institutional life
becomes inadequate to cope with too much
information it is what happens when a
culture overcome by information
generated by technology tries to avoid
technology itself as a means of
providing a clear direction and humane
pause we made up the word but maybe you
can gather from these quotes it’s meant
to designate the stage of society where
technology is no longer just a means to
a specific localized but is instead much
more powerful much more pervasive in
fact it starts to rewire the circuits of
a culture in a boat economic technology
Guzman argues that some of the
consequences of this rapid dissolution
of traditional beliefs also brings about
the silencing or the deoptimization of
those Institute’s we built in our
society to cope with all that
information so for example when the
abundance of information out there
starts performing to be news the
traditional journalistic enterprises The
Wall Street Journal
can cope with all that
and so in a flood bit their voices are
silenced and there are 40 question now
of course having free access to a great
amount of information is not come in of
the self of that well but postman and
others will help us recognize is that
there’s an inevitable trade-off between
having all that information available to
us and having the ability to regulate it
twenty years ago with your book this
book at the time of writing you thought
everything and I think if we take stock
of our present state of affairs will
there are two responses you might be the
passive stance we might say look this is
just the natural evolution of Technology
it brought us to this post fact place
let the information time roll on or we
want to connect the stance we might
begin to make decisive steps to think
about long in the heart how we engage it
with this influx of information you know
I said we have a passive choice but I
don’t think we actually do why because
when there’s so much information
available through technology as many
ways that no individual the one person
can sift through all of it we start to
make decisions on a daily basis about
what information to let it and whatever
information she’ll that and we’re
carrying out its filtering processes in
an unprecedented way we have to do it to
succeed in our culture we start secure
it for ourselves
in other words a particular story about
the world based on that subset of
information he chose regarding with news
information I heard a journalist
recently call this creating so if we’re
going to be an active in filtering all
this information
we don’t really have a choice about it
let’s just let’s be responsible and
start to cultivate good practices for
engaging with all this information and I
think where does of these different
filters is the first step but I want to
suggest three other tools or lessons
from philosophy of science surprise that
might have helped us in our way of
navigating this news there’s now a lot
of luxu science I am a loss for science
so explore I know it and for those of
you who’ve never heard of this
discipline before it’s easy it’s just a
branch it’s not easy to explain by there
it’s a branch of philosophy that uses
pulls up with tools to investigate
science so we’re interested in questions
like what is the nature of the
scientific theory where our laws what’s
a good explanation
are we really connected with reality are
their values in science and the like the
other reason I’m taking these three
lessons from philosophy science is
because it’s a field that studies
another field that has demonstrated a
lot of success sorting out a potentially
infinite amount of information science
is good if it does and so somehow it’s
figured out practices that help it
choose between the good information in
the bag and separate the signal from the
noise okay so one of these three lessons
one thing is retaining facticity or
facts as a guiding star second is
adopting the critical versus a dogmatic
attitude and the third is reliance so
first facticity science is supposed to
describe behaviors and patterns in the
natural world and we think it does a
pretty good job of this most of the time
and when we ask ourselves why it’s good
at that usually our answer has something
to do at least intuitively with the idea
that science is good
because it’s some how much you want to
realities it’s tapping into truth so
there’s some link between the data of
observation and facts in the world now
that was the nature of that link is an
arena of vigorous but for our purposes I
think it’s sufficient to say that very
few can claim there’s no such thing at
all
so there’s some time in science here
world and the practices of science I
think in the information deluge which we
find with ourselves we’ve lost we’ve
lost the importance of there being
entire information that claims to be
factual that it has true continents and
other indicators of truth so veracity
testability may be that other sources
confirm robbery of information we just
need to rethink about the rule the truth
of fact plates and also information okay
second thing credible versus the
dogmatic attitude I don’t think it’s any
big secret that scientists or
philosophers earth academics many sort
for that matter think it’s better not to
be dogmatic about a particular body of
information like a scientific theory but
instead to be critical to hold it in
different lights to test poke and prod
and look at it from different vantage
points that’s just what it is to do good
science
somebody’s overly in love with their hat
theory and they won’t listen to new
evidence they won’t entertain other
possibilities
they’re not being good scientists and
not acting with integrity or their field
well I think musing ample evidence in
recent times that
[Music]
themselves breakdown in civil discourse
of patent real fracture in society see
one way to for feeling that perhaps and
that means letting in a challenge or a
third of the experts now it’s tricky to
say exactly what scientific expertise
consists in but we have a general idea
of what it entails so for instance if
somebody claims to be from a scientific
discovery but they don’t have any of the
hallmark characteristics
maybe they don’t belong to an
institution as or maybe they don’t have
a track record of proven success in a
particular field or the right kind of
training or something like that
we don’t disregard what they say but we
do need it that’s why the peer review
process is currently doing science you
need other experts to weigh in on new
information now I think this reliance on
expertise is equally important in the
technology and maybe penis why if no one
individual can accurately in the
critical I gather all the information
out there it’s just impossible and the
amount of information is not likely to
decrease anytime soon if we can’t do it
then you need to export or outsource
some of that curatorial process to
someone else an expert and maybe experts
in the right field with that body of
information now why do I stress this
relevant issue well I read a Gallup poll
from June 2016 that said all Americans
aged 18 to 34 over 15%
we’re using social media as their
primary new resource now that’s
worrisome
as social media for all the things they
are they are not accountable to
responsible for or primarily in the kind
of in the business of journals now to be
fair some of the people being fooled
maybe going to Sylvia to get links to
legitimate news sources because we now
know that there are how rhythms being
employed by these sorta to tailor
specifically to a user what she sees
based on her own predilections her own
past preferences in other words there
are dogmatic filters in place so we need
to rely on expertise and expertise so
there are the three things I think it’s
into my lens and that’ll be our but is
going to be passive in the face of all
that noise all that information I think
we can actively start to cultivate
better practices for how we lady view
the same types of information and from
philosophy of science I’ve said maybe
three ways to start moving forward of
our by cooking and by relying on
expertise and it’s my belief that if we
do these things we can start to bring to
bear our Faculty’s innovative we can
start to reclaim firm ground for civic virtues
from a book by Neil whose technology is
a state of culture it is also a state of
mind it consists in the deification of
technology which means that the culture
seeks its authorization in technology
finds its assess action in technology
and takes his orders this requires the
development of a new kind of social
order and a necessity leads to the rapid
dissolution of much that is associated
with traditional beliefs one way of
defining technology then is to say it is
what happens to a society when the
defenses against information what who’s
what happens when institutional life
becomes inadequate to cope with too much
information it is what happens when a
culture overcome by information
generated by technology tries to avoid
technology itself as a means of
providing a clear direction and humane
pause we made up the word but maybe you
can gather from these quotes it’s meant
to designate the stage of society where
technology is no longer just a means to
a specific localized but is instead much
more powerful much more pervasive in
fact it starts to rewire the circuits of
a culture in a boat economic technology
Guzman argues that some of the
consequences of this rapid dissolution
of traditional beliefs also brings about
the silencing or the deoptimization of
those Institute’s we built in our
society to cope with all that
information so for example when the
abundance of information out there
starts performing to be news the
traditional journalistic enterprises The
Wall Street Journal
can cope with all that
and so in a flood bit their voices are
silenced and there are 40 question now
of course having free access to a great
amount of information is not come in of
the self of that well but postman and
others will help us recognize is that
there’s an inevitable trade-off between
having all that information available to
us and having the ability to regulate it
twenty years ago with your book this
book at the time of writing you thought
everything and I think if we take stock
of our present state of affairs will
there are two responses you might be the
passive stance we might say look this is
just the natural evolution of Technology
it brought us to this post fact place
let the information time roll on or we
want to connect the stance we might
begin to make decisive steps to think
about long in the heart how we engage it
with this influx of information you know
I said we have a passive choice but I
don’t think we actually do why because
when there’s so much information
available through technology as many
ways that no individual the one person
can sift through all of it we start to
make decisions on a daily basis about
what information to let it and whatever
information she’ll that and we’re
carrying out its filtering processes in
an unprecedented way we have to do it to
succeed in our culture we start secure
it for ourselves
in other words a particular story about
the world based on that subset of
information he chose regarding with news
information I heard a journalist
recently call this creating so if we’re
going to be an active in filtering all
this information
we don’t really have a choice about it
let’s just let’s be responsible and
start to cultivate good practices for
engaging with all this information and I
think where does of these different
filters is the first step but I want to
suggest three other tools or lessons
from philosophy of science surprise that
might have helped us in our way of
navigating this news there’s now a lot
of luxu science I am a loss for science
so explore I know it and for those of
you who’ve never heard of this
discipline before it’s easy it’s just a
branch it’s not easy to explain by there
it’s a branch of philosophy that uses
pulls up with tools to investigate
science so we’re interested in questions
like what is the nature of the
scientific theory where our laws what’s
a good explanation
are we really connected with reality are
their values in science and the like the
other reason I’m taking these three
lessons from philosophy science is
because it’s a field that studies
another field that has demonstrated a
lot of success sorting out a potentially
infinite amount of information science
is good if it does and so somehow it’s
figured out practices that help it
choose between the good information in
the bag and separate the signal from the
noise okay so one of these three lessons
one thing is retaining facticity or
facts as a guiding star second is
adopting the critical versus a dogmatic
attitude and the third is reliance so
first facticity science is supposed to
describe behaviors and patterns in the
natural world and we think it does a
pretty good job of this most of the time
and when we ask ourselves why it’s good
at that usually our answer has something
to do at least intuitively with the idea
that science is good
because it’s some how much you want to
realities it’s tapping into truth so
there’s some link between the data of
observation and facts in the world now
that was the nature of that link is an
arena of vigorous but for our purposes I
think it’s sufficient to say that very
few can claim there’s no such thing at
all
so there’s some time in science here
world and the practices of science I
think in the information deluge which we
find with ourselves we’ve lost we’ve
lost the importance of there being
entire information that claims to be
factual that it has true continents and
other indicators of truth so veracity
testability may be that other sources
confirm robbery of information we just
need to rethink about the rule the truth
of fact plates and also information okay
second thing credible versus the
dogmatic attitude I don’t think it’s any
big secret that scientists or
philosophers earth academics many sort
for that matter think it’s better not to
be dogmatic about a particular body of
information like a scientific theory but
instead to be critical to hold it in
different lights to test poke and prod
and look at it from different vantage
points that’s just what it is to do good
science
somebody’s overly in love with their hat
theory and they won’t listen to new
evidence they won’t entertain other
possibilities
they’re not being good scientists and
not acting with integrity or their field
well I think musing ample evidence in
recent times that
[Music]
themselves breakdown in civil discourse
of patent real fracture in society see
one way to for feeling that perhaps and
that means letting in a challenge or a
third of the experts now it’s tricky to
say exactly what scientific expertise
consists in but we have a general idea
of what it entails so for instance if
somebody claims to be from a scientific
discovery but they don’t have any of the
hallmark characteristics
maybe they don’t belong to an
institution as or maybe they don’t have
a track record of proven success in a
particular field or the right kind of
training or something like that
we don’t disregard what they say but we
do need it that’s why the peer review
process is currently doing science you
need other experts to weigh in on new
information now I think this reliance on
expertise is equally important in the
technology and maybe penis why if no one
individual can accurately in the
critical I gather all the information
out there it’s just impossible and the
amount of information is not likely to
decrease anytime soon if we can’t do it
then you need to export or outsource
some of that curatorial process to
someone else an expert and maybe experts
in the right field with that body of
information now why do I stress this
relevant issue well I read a Gallup poll
from June 2016 that said all Americans
aged 18 to 34 over 15%
we’re using social media as their
primary new resource now that’s
worrisome
as social media for all the things they
are they are not accountable to
responsible for or primarily in the kind
of in the business of journals now to be
fair some of the people being fooled
maybe going to Sylvia to get links to
legitimate news sources because we now
know that there are how rhythms being
employed by these sorta to tailor
specifically to a user what she sees
based on her own predilections her own
past preferences in other words there
are dogmatic filters in place so we need
to rely on expertise and expertise so
there are the three things I think it’s
into my lens and that’ll be our but is
going to be passive in the face of all
that noise all that information I think
we can actively start to cultivate
better practices for how we lady view
the same types of information and from
philosophy of science I’ve said maybe
three ways to start moving forward of
our by cooking and by relying on
expertise and it’s my belief that if we
do these things we can start to bring to
bear our Faculty’s innovative we can
start to reclaim firm ground for civic virtues
Please follow and like us: