Has the internet made people more knowledgeable?
Discussion
When the internet started, it was thought that instant access to humanity’s combined knowledge would make people more knowledgeable and give power to individuals. I am not sure that has happened as expected. It seems to me that instead of using the internet to research and reach a (provisional) conclusion, too many people use it to find support for opinions and beliefs they already hold.
I suppose that there have been quite a lot of studies showing how irrational people are and that most of the time beliefs and opinions are not based on rational analysis and that once someone believes something it is very hard to shift that belief.
You can see it on lots of threads on here - the climate change ones being a very good example - where some posters seem to go to extraordinary efforts to dig up “evidence” that AGW is fake or exaggerated.
Schools should be able to teach critical thinking but perhaps our biological predisposition to believe things strongly on the basis of little or no evidence and get caught up with magical thinking is too strong.
I suppose that there have been quite a lot of studies showing how irrational people are and that most of the time beliefs and opinions are not based on rational analysis and that once someone believes something it is very hard to shift that belief.
You can see it on lots of threads on here - the climate change ones being a very good example - where some posters seem to go to extraordinary efforts to dig up “evidence” that AGW is fake or exaggerated.
Schools should be able to teach critical thinking but perhaps our biological predisposition to believe things strongly on the basis of little or no evidence and get caught up with magical thinking is too strong.
For sure - it's increased the firehose of information that people can access (not always accurate info though).
For some absolutely - makes the world of knowlege available from world experts in video and discussion form.
For some absolutely not - some assume that they can always look up things when they need so no need work on their general knowledge.
I would guess on the whole it's made people in general significantly more knowledgable.
For some absolutely - makes the world of knowlege available from world experts in video and discussion form.
For some absolutely not - some assume that they can always look up things when they need so no need work on their general knowledge.
I would guess on the whole it's made people in general significantly more knowledgable.
The biggest issue is misinformation.
People parrot s
t without verifying it first and you end up with rubbish like antivaxxers, Russian-propaganda and flat earth types actually believing the nonsense they spout because they did 'research' on Facebook or whatever.
I think there should be a test before anyone is allowed to post anything online.
People parrot s
t without verifying it first and you end up with rubbish like antivaxxers, Russian-propaganda and flat earth types actually believing the nonsense they spout because they did 'research' on Facebook or whatever. I think there should be a test before anyone is allowed to post anything online.
Skeptisk said:
dig up “evidence” that AGW is fake or exaggerated.
Schools should be able to teach critical thinking but perhaps our biological predisposition to believe things strongly on the basis of little or no evidence and get caught up with magical thinking is too strong.
Schools should be able to teach critical thinking but perhaps our biological predisposition to believe things strongly on the basis of little or no evidence and get caught up with magical thinking is too strong.
Haven't you got some roads to superglue yourself to?
I think not. It gives us an opportunity to find information, but it's rarely in depth in the same way that a book is (even from those who have written books on the topics they talk about). It's also easier to forget the facts learned online compared to books, unless you make notes before and after.
Then there is the fact that very very little nonfiction is actually good quality or even true, and it's easy to find yourself only getting one view on things.
Using the internet responsibly is a skill in itself, which few people seem to have. It reminds me of the one ring. It can give you extreme power/knowledge if you know how to wield it and are strong enough to resist the temptations but it comes with a big risk of turning you into Gollum.
Then there is the fact that very very little nonfiction is actually good quality or even true, and it's easy to find yourself only getting one view on things.
Using the internet responsibly is a skill in itself, which few people seem to have. It reminds me of the one ring. It can give you extreme power/knowledge if you know how to wield it and are strong enough to resist the temptations but it comes with a big risk of turning you into Gollum.
Edited by Mr Penguin on Saturday 29th July 12:21
I don't think it's a simple yes or no question.
Go look at the thread about the submarine that recently imploded and in the space of a few days half the Internet had turned into experts on carbon fibre composite and submersible crush depths.
Is that knowledge or had they'd just spent ten minutes reading an article and assumed they now knew a lot?
If I want to read stuff there's everything from someone's opinion dressed up as knowledge through to instant access to pretty much any Lindy type publication or piece of knowledge ever produced or published.
So it can but I think whether it does is down to how you use it.
Go look at the thread about the submarine that recently imploded and in the space of a few days half the Internet had turned into experts on carbon fibre composite and submersible crush depths.
Is that knowledge or had they'd just spent ten minutes reading an article and assumed they now knew a lot?
If I want to read stuff there's everything from someone's opinion dressed up as knowledge through to instant access to pretty much any Lindy type publication or piece of knowledge ever produced or published.
So it can but I think whether it does is down to how you use it.
r3g said:
Skeptisk said:
dig up “evidence” that AGW is fake or exaggerated.
Schools should be able to teach critical thinking but perhaps our biological predisposition to believe things strongly on the basis of little or no evidence and get caught up with magical thinking is too strong.
Schools should be able to teach critical thinking but perhaps our biological predisposition to believe things strongly on the basis of little or no evidence and get caught up with magical thinking is too strong.
Haven't you got some roads to superglue yourself to?
MBBlat said:
You know it’s possible to believe that AGW is real and also think the like of extinction rebellion are a bunch of muppets?
Both fall into the same category. Which is what makes this thread so amusing - one guy ranting about "climate emergency" deniers not being knowledgeable and then in the very next sentence says "Schools should be able to teach critical thinking but perhaps our biological predisposition to believe things strongly on the basis of little or no evidence and get caught up with magical thinking is too strong." You couldn't make it up ! Irony completely lost on him. Let's have a quick look at the web archive to see what deleted claims we can find about the "climate emergency" :
https://web.archive.org/web/20230307215203/https:/...
How's that going then?
r3g said:
MBBlat said:
You know it’s possible to believe that AGW is real and also think the like of extinction rebellion are a bunch of muppets?
Both fall into the same category. Which is what makes this thread so amusing - one guy ranting about "climate emergency" deniers not being knowledgeable and then in the very next sentence says "Schools should be able to teach critical thinking but perhaps our biological predisposition to believe things strongly on the basis of little or no evidence and get caught up with magical thinking is too strong." You couldn't make it up ! Irony completely lost on him. Let's have a quick look at the web archive to see what deleted claims we can find about the "climate emergency" :
https://web.archive.org/web/20230307215203/https:/...
How's that going then?
AGW is accepted by all governments, all universities, all scientific institutes. It is as controversial scientifically as accepting the theory of evolution, yet you post something off the internet and that disproves it all?
Skeptisk said:
r3g said:
MBBlat said:
You know it’s possible to believe that AGW is real and also think the like of extinction rebellion are a bunch of muppets?
Both fall into the same category. Which is what makes this thread so amusing - one guy ranting about "climate emergency" deniers not being knowledgeable and then in the very next sentence says "Schools should be able to teach critical thinking but perhaps our biological predisposition to believe things strongly on the basis of little or no evidence and get caught up with magical thinking is too strong." You couldn't make it up ! Irony completely lost on him. Let's have a quick look at the web archive to see what deleted claims we can find about the "climate emergency" :
https://web.archive.org/web/20230307215203/https:/...
How's that going then?
AGW is accepted by all governments, all universities, all scientific institutes. It is as controversial scientifically as accepting the theory of evolution, yet you post something off the internet and that disproves it all?
Just don't feed it, and hope it f
ks off back under its bridge.Skeptisk said:
You are right, you couldn’t make it up.
AGW is accepted by all governments, all universities, all scientific institutes.
Oh well, that means it's definitely legit then ! /s Are these the same governments and scientific institutes that told us Covid was going to wipe us all out when it turned out to be a complete nothingburger? Are these the same "top climate scientists" who told us in 2018 that humanity would be completely wiped out in 5 years if we don't stop using fossil fuels? Yes, yes they are!AGW is accepted by all governments, all universities, all scientific institutes.
We do agree on something : schools don't teach any critical thought process, as evidenced by your very own posts.
Baldchap said:
The biggest issue is misinformation.
People parrot st without verifying it first and you end up with rubbish like antivaxxers, Russian-propaganda and flat earth types actually believing the nonsense they spout because they did 'research' on Facebook or whatever.
I think there should be a test before anyone is allowed to post anything online.
There's also the echo chamber effect of social media that is a big factor in this. People tend to associate with like minded people, so sooner or later they start to believe that the majority of people share their view because so many people they interact with do. People parrot s
t without verifying it first and you end up with rubbish like antivaxxers, Russian-propaganda and flat earth types actually believing the nonsense they spout because they did 'research' on Facebook or whatever. I think there should be a test before anyone is allowed to post anything online.
r3g said:
Skeptisk said:
You are right, you couldn’t make it up.
AGW is accepted by all governments, all universities, all scientific institutes.
Oh well, that means it's definitely legit then ! /s Are these the same governments and scientific institutes that told us Covid was going to wipe us all out when it turned out to be a complete nothingburger? Are these the same "top climate scientists" who told us in 2018 that humanity would be completely wiped out in 5 years if we don't stop using fossil fuels? Yes, yes they are!AGW is accepted by all governments, all universities, all scientific institutes.
We do agree on something : schools don't teach any critical thought process, as evidenced by your very own posts.
Nobody said Covid was going to wipe us out, nor was it a nothingburger.
Scientists didn’t say we would be completely wiped out if we don’t stop using fossil fuels, they said temperature changes will be irreversible. The doom-mongers of just stop oil then took that to an extreme, but they have the same level of critical thinking as the anti AGW crowd just less oil company funding.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff