Knowledge for Idiots

[Puck Nutty]

Books are no different than Wikipedia; without credible sources/citations, they are to be considered suspect. Wikipedia may be open source, but if the citations are sound, what's the problem? Does paper + ink = credibility?

Wikipedia (or documentaries) are as good a place to start as any. It is up to the reader to look deeper and find the truth. Don't blame the filmmakers if their audience is intellectually lazy.

 

[attackfighter]

I'd lay the real failure at the feet of school. Bureaucratic pressures have resulted in a schoolday that attempts to slice "learning" up into bite-sized chunks that are forcefed through a smattering of factoids every day. Due to the impossibility of acquiring any skills this way, schools have shoved off the heavy lifting on the students themselves by introducing "school at home" piecemeal (i.e. homework). This represents a basic, profound failure of education. Teachers no longer need even attempt to have us practice or apply these skills in any meaningful way; why bother when they have us jot down basic theory and demand that we practice at home?

Social networking and media are often the only way people acquire an actual education, and that sort of education is for obvious reasons harmful.

My epic 8th grade social studies teacher taught the class that The Day After Tomorrow was a realistic portrayal of an ice age, in particular the part where the ice slowly advanced like the spread of a grass fire.

My 12th grade social studies teacher had some mental disease that made her relate everything back to Hitler, whom she would go on unprovoked tirades against.

In general most people should give up on thinking about things. History should be rewritten, to say that Hitler was a T-Rex, but Charlie Chaplin stopped him from destroying the world by flying a bi-plane around his feet with a bungie cord trailing behind, so that after several revolutions Hitler's feet were tied up by the bungie cord and he fell, allowing barbarian berzerker Ghandi to administer the final blow with his mighty broad sword.

 

[attackfighter]

Books are no different than Wikipedia; without credible sources/citations, they are to be considered suspect. Wikipedia may be open source, but if the citations are sound, what's the problem? Does paper + ink = credibility?

Wikipedia (or documentaries) are as good a place to start as any. It is up to the reader to look deeper and find the truth. Don't blame the filmmakers if their audience is intellectually lazy.

Speaking as someone who has read books, good books are higher quality than any wikipedia article I've read, plus I think it's pointless to only digest a tid bit of information on such and such subject, another tid bit over there, and so on. You only memorise things well if you immerse yourself in them, so reading a big tome on WW2 is infinitely better than a wikipedia article, even if the article is factually correct.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The most important thing to consider when a five year old asks why the sky is blue is that (with some exceptions) they don't really care. If you actually try and give them a 'short course' in physics and optics and components of the planetary atmosphere they are likely to care even less right then, and never care later.

I generally said 'would you prefer something different?' at least until they got to an age where their question was a sign of some real interest...usually coinciding with a book they were reading.

 

[Tarquelne]

Personally, I got pretty teed-off when I realized that something I thought I'd been accuratly taught turned out to be a misleading simplification.

Simplifications are hard to avoid, but I do think some are much better than others.

For that reason I'd generally rank a wiki article above a doco. Maybe I just haven't seen enough good docos - or enough bad wiki articles - but IME documentaries are too prone to over-simplifications and significant omissions. As with almost everything on a screen - big or little - lack of time tends to cut into the substance.

I'm OK with documentaries when the subject isn't something I really want to know about. In which case I generally don't watch the documentary.

I watch very, very few docos these days.

On credibility: I think people used to have good reason to generally trust what they read. Getting something published and widely distributed was relatively expensive and difficult. There was a big barrier to entry that eliminated most of the quacks and fools with an axe to grind. (Pretty much leaving the field to actual authorities and all the lies money could buy.) These days, OTOH, everything's cheaper to make - books, movies, whatever - and the reading and viewing public is big enough to support plenty of quacks and fools.

 

[Narz]

Books are no different than Wikipedia; without credible sources/citations, they are to be considered suspect. Wikipedia may be open source, but if the citations are sound, what's the problem? Does paper + ink = credibility?

A decent book will be 200+ pages long & have dozens of sources, a wikipedia article 2-3 pages long with a handful.

Wikipedia (or documentaries) are as good a place to start as any. It is up to the reader to look deeper and find the truth. Don't blame the filmmakers if their audience is intellectually lazy.

I agree they're a good place to start but not to finish.

 

[sophie]

A decent book will be 200+ pages long & have dozens of sources, a wikipedia article 2-3 pages long with a handful.


I agree they're a good place to start but not to finish.

So wikipedia has more citations per word then. Excellent!

My epic 8th grade social studies teacher taught the class that The Day After Tomorrow was a realistic portrayal of an ice age, in particular the part where the ice slowly advanced like the spread of a grass fire.

My 12th grade social studies teacher had some mental disease that made her relate everything back to Hitler, whom she would go on unprovoked tirades against.

In general most people should give up on thinking about things. History should be rewritten, to say that Hitler was a T-Rex, but Charlie Chaplin stopped him from destroying the world by flying a bi-plane around his feet with a bungie cord trailing behind, so that after several revolutions Hitler's feet were tied up by the bungie cord and he fell, allowing barbarian berzerker Ghandi to administer the final blow with his mighty broad sword.

I always love these stories. Mostly because you're almost certainly exaggerating/misremembering them in your mind.

 

[Mise]

thread delivers

do people still say that?

 

[brennan]

The greatest intellectuals probably are found in modern times.

Today's intellectuals have so much more really great evidence to go on and all the combined wisdom and learning of previous generations for one thing.

For another, there's so many people alive today that we aren't all that much outnumbered by previous generations - global population growth has been so explosive in the twentieth century.

Oh, and wiki is a perfectly good source of information. Wiki is much easier for contributors to edit than a book, which has to go through a lengthy editing and publishing/printing cycle. A couple of studies show that wiki is an excellent source for cutting edge science information - partly because the people updating the pages are often the people doing the research.

 

[Samson]

I am going to disagree with a couple of people, but I am not really sure I am right:

Speaking as someone who has read books, good books are higher quality than any wikipedia article I've read, plus I think it's pointless to only digest a tid bit of information on such and such subject, another tid bit over there, and so on. You only memorise things well if you immerse yourself in them, so reading a big tome on WW2 is infinitely better than a wikipedia article, even if the article is factually correct.

I think you memorise things better when you have put a bit of effort into finding out. So starting with a wikipedia article, and then delving into the references and / or googling particular aspects of the subject and reading further, is IMO better that reading a single source.

The most important thing to consider when a five year old asks why the sky is blue is that (with some exceptions) they don't really care. If you actually try and give them a 'short course' in physics and optics and components of the planetary atmosphere they are likely to care even less right then, and never care later.

I my experience, when a child asks a scientific question they really do want to know the answer. Sure they may not appreciate the complexity of a full answer, but in this case I reckon that if I tried to explain the real reason, probably using a glass of water and the sun to demonstrate the effect, I could stimulate their interest rather than putting them off science for ever.

 

[El_Machinae]

In defense of the modern teacher, there is a lot more to teach these days than there used to be. We've added a lot of depth to history, fattened it up a lot. Science has exploded. Teaching 'rithmatic ain't easy to figure out how to do, since there are so many tools that rapidly move our capabilities vastly beyond our intuitions. etc.

 

[warpus]

Books are no different than Wikipedia; without credible sources/citations, they are to be considered suspect. Wikipedia may be open source, but if the citations are sound, what's the problem? Does paper + ink = credibility?

Wikipedia (or documentaries) are as good a place to start as any. It is up to the reader to look deeper and find the truth. Don't blame the filmmakers if their audience is intellectually lazy.

Wikipedia is an excellent tertiary source. It's a perfect place to start doing research for whatever, as long as you understand that you need to look at the sources, and whether they're backed up elsewhere.

Wikipedia is more accurate on average than a printed encyclopedia, so all those people who keep saying: "but anyone can edit it!", don't really understand what they're talking about.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I my experience, when a child asks a scientific question they really do want to know the answer. Sure they may not appreciate the complexity of a full answer, but in this case I reckon that if I tried to explain the real reason, probably using a glass of water and the sun to demonstrate the effect, I could stimulate their interest rather than putting them off science for ever.

My opinion, when a kid asks a question they want a conversation more than they really want that specific answer.

"Why is the sky blue?"

"You prefer something else?"

"No, blue is good."

"Good thing it's blue then."

"Yeah."

If they want to delve into the science of it I'm willing, but I generally won't lead the way.

 

[illram]

Whatever Google autofills for my search terms is usually definitive enough for me.

 

[Puck Nutty]

Speaking as someone who has read books, good books are higher quality than any wikipedia article I've read, plus I think it's pointless to only digest a tid bit of information on such and such subject, another tid bit over there, and so on. You only memorise things well if you immerse yourself in them, so reading a big tome on WW2 is infinitely better than a wikipedia article, even if the article is factually correct.

A decent book will be 200+ pages long & have dozens of sources, a wikipedia article 2-3 pages long with a handful.


I agree they're a good place to start but not to finish.

Wikipedia is an excellent tertiary source. It's a perfect place to start doing research for whatever, as long as you understand that you need to look at the sources, and whether they're backed up elsewhere.

Wikipedia is more accurate on average than a printed encyclopedia, so all those people who keep saying: "but anyone can edit it!", don't really understand what they're talking about.

I'm agreeing with all of you in principle. I guess the point I didn't quite get across is that it's up to the reader (or audience) to follow through and read more on the subject. Intellectual apathy or inertia can't be blamed on an inanimate object.

The advantage Wiki has over books is that a book is limited by physical space, while Wiki is not. Wiki (or the internet in general) allows more convenient access to complete information than a library, which encourages learning.

 

[Goodfella]

Speaking as someone who has read books, good books are higher quality than any wikipedia article I've read, plus I think it's pointless to only digest a tid bit of information on such and such subject, another tid bit over there, and so on. You only memorise things well if you immerse yourself in them, so reading a big tome on WW2 is infinitely better than a wikipedia article, even if the article is factually correct.

No, knowing something about WW2 from a wiki article is better than knowing nothing about it at all. There's not enough time in the world to read a 300 page book on every topic.

 

[Kennigit]

The words you are looking for are the median person, not the average person

#wiki4lyfe

 

[Goodfella]

The words you are looking for are the median person, not the average person

#wiki4lyfe

Nah, knowing facts is pointless if your facts didn't come out of a 300 page book. Also, because I didn't pay attention in high school I think the education system sucks and that's why everyone is stupider than me.

 

[jackelgull]

The school system in America actually isn't that bad compared to the rest of the world,especially places like India. That said, I often find myself correcting my history teacher. She gets the core of the subject correct, she just misses out on a few fringe details.

 

[Cutlass]

Nah, knowing facts is pointless if your facts didn't come out of a 300 page book. Also, because I didn't pay attention in high school I think the education system sucks and that's why everyone is stupider than me.

Oddly enough, the last 300 page book I read on WWII used Wiki articles as referenced source material in the notes and bibliography.