On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:17 AM, Julia Lavarnway
<
jlavarnway@centerforinquiry.net> wrote:
>
Hi Barry,
>
> I'll take a look at this and make sure Adam
has it to post by Monday.
> Does it have a
title?
>
> Julia
>
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at
9:34 AM, <
SkeptInq@aol.com>
wrote:
>> If possible I'd like us to post on
Monday.
>>
>>
Barry
>>
>>
>>
________________________________
>> From:
barriticus@gmail.com>> To:
SkeptInq@aol.com>> Sent: 4/22/2010
11:16:02 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time
>> Subj: Re:
Lectures?
>>
>> Howdy-
>> Here's the second
column. Let me know what you think.
>> I spent a portion of
last year reading through more than a decade of
>>
accumulated columns and articles by the United States' most respected
and
>> widely-read pundits; this was done in the course of
writing my upcoming book
>> on the failure of the American
media to provide the passive news-consuming
>> citizenry with
a reasonably competent stream of opinion journalism.
>>
Additionally, I've spent much of the past five years engaging in
media
>> criticism in general, both professionally and as a
deranged sort of hobby. I
>> may accurately boast of being
among the world's greatest authorities on the
>> failures of
other media professionals, and ignoring for a moment what
that
>> says about me as a person, the reader should consider
what a fine thing it
>> is to know whether or not a crucial,
resource-heavy enterprise does its job,
>> and if it doesn't,
how bad the situation is and what the implications may
>>
be.
>> Even more to the point, the situation has just
recently entered a state of
>> unprecedented flux, this
having been prompted almost entirely by the onset
>> of the
information age and its all-encompassing primary feature,
the
>> internet. If we're willing to take the opportunity,
the organized skeptic
>> community can have a hand in
assisting with the magnificent and
>> unprecedented
revolution that is now occurring as a result of all this,
as
>> well as utilizing its dynamics in such a way as to
spread skepticism in
>> general and our specific debunkings
in particular to a far larger audience
>> than that which we
have at present. More importantly, we will vastly improve
>>
our influence upon those whom we have the greatest positive impact:
those
>> who are not already active skeptics, and who are
thus more likely to
>> personally benefit from the knowledge
we bring to the table.
>> We have an opportunity to do
something great, something unprecedented,
>> something
revolutionary. All that is needed is a viable plan by which
to
>> accomplish this - which, of course, is like saying that
all we need to buy
>> the Empire State Building is the money
to do so as well as some people to
>> handle the actual
purchase for us.
>>
>> ***
>>
>>
If we acknowledge that things are not what they are because they
should be,
>> but rather simply because they are, we might go
on to conclude that that
>> which happens to be is not
necessarily that which would be best. The
>> totality
of human society, being one such thing, may be expected to exist
in
>> something less than what we would deem to be a state of
perfection. The
>> reader is invited to confirm this for
himself.
>> We are aware, then, that society has suffered
from imperfections in the
>> past, the past being the only
thing available for our review. We may
>> extrapolate from
this that society suffers from imperfections in the
present
>> insomuch as that the present is simply the past in
gestation, and does not
>> seem to go through any radical
transformation in becoming the past, which is
>> to say that
we may find great similarity in the now as compared to, say,
the
>> now minus ten years. Still, portions of the past may
differ in some respects
>> from the present - the past
contains the Ottoman Empire, for instance,
>> whereas the
present does not. This is reassuring, as it would seem to
>>
indicate that the future may differ from the present as well,
particularly
>> if we give it cause to do so. Of
course, we cannot help but give the future
>> cause to take a
certain form, as we influence it merely by existing in the
>>
present, which is the future's raw material. The present,
incidentally, is
>> the unconscious conspiracy of the past;
it does not come to us through
>> design. The exception is
that small portion of a given present - breakfast,
>> a
cigarette, an overthrow of some flawed institution - which is the
result
>> of conscious planning in the past by self-aware
beings. To the extent that
>> we are able and willing to do
so, then, we may conspire against the future
>> in such a way
as to bring about such things as these. To have breakfast
>>
later, one makes the appropriate preparations beforehand.
>>
The reader may object that it is all well and good to point out that
things
>> are not perfect and perhaps ought to be changed,
but that there is a great
>> difference between pointing out
flaws and eradicating them. The difference,
>> our objector
continues, is akin to the difference between breakfast,
>>
cigarettes, and institutional overthrows; the first two may be
successfully
>> pursued by individuals whereas the third
tends to require some degree of
>> collaboration, which
itself is more difficult to set into motion than are
>> the
individual actions necessary to obtain food and tobacco. Certainly
these
>> differences are real, and certainly the overthrowing
of institutions is a
>> business best pursued in tandem with
other individuals - and certainly such
>> arrangements as
require the cooperation of others are difficult to bring
>>
about. But in a more fundamental sense, an institutional overthrow can
be
>> set in motion by way of an individual action just as
fixing breakfast or
>> obtaining a cigarette can be. If, for
instance, an individual is able to
>> devise a plan by which
such an overthrow may be successfully accomplished,
>> and is
able to convince others to adopt the plan in such a way as that
the
>> plan is perpetuated to the extent necessary to achieve
the intended change,
>> then, yes, an individual may cause an
institution to be overthrown.
>> Now the reader may also
object that, aside from the semantics of what
>> constitutes
individual action, there is still quite a bit of
substantive
>> difference between making breakfast or
acquiring a cigarette and convincing
>> others to adopt some
plan. The former actions are quite easy, and
>> accomplished
every day by quite a few individuals; the latter, we might
>>
agree, is a great rarity - but if we did agree, we would be wrong,
because
>> such a thing is not rare at all. Each day, one
convinces others to
>> collaborate on some or another thing,
such as the preparation of breakfast.
>> It is simply a
matter of convincing others to join one in doing such a
>>
thing.
>> Again, the reader objects, this time noting that it
is nothing more than a
>> transparent rhetorical trick to
compare the persuasion of others to join one
>> in making
breakfast to the persuasion of others to join one in attempting
to
>> pull off something so ambitious as the overthrow of an
institution. There
>> is, one would note, a major difference
in terms of feasibility between the
>> making of breakfast
and the making of trouble. To overthrow something worth
>>
overthrowing, one would have to concoct a plan that would be
sufficiently
>> promising to incite the interest of others.
One would have to locate those
>> individuals who are in a
position to ensure that the plan is disseminated to
>> the
extent necessary for implementation, and then one would have to
contact
>> them and convince them not only to agree with the
plan, but to act on it. To
>> the extent that the plan
requires resources, expertise, and infrastructure,
>> all of
these things must be secured, and this may require one to
convince
>> others to provide these things. To summarize, one
must put in place the
>> conditions by which the plan is not
only possible, but deemed not only
>> desirable, but also
viable by those whose cooperation is necessary to
>>
implement it. One must set things in motion.
>> I will admit
at this point that one perhaps ought not to consider
>>
contributing to a project until that project has been set in motion in
such
>> a way as that one might reasonably expect it to
succeed. Likewise, I will
>> admit that such tasks as
described above are easier stated than done.
>> I am happy to
admit that all of these things must be done because I have
>>
already done them all.
>> ***
>> The formal
announcement and manifesto for Project PM will be
forthcoming,
>> although I have released bits and pieces of
the overall plan in the three
>> months since I first
announced what I had in mind in an article for Vanity
>>
Fair. On this occasion, I would like to address the skeptic community
as a
>> whole in order to recruit as many as I can for the
project, for much the
>> same reason that the Byzantine
emperors sought to recruit as many Varangians
>> as they
could for their own projects - there is no demographic that
is
>> better-equipped to operate in the landscape that is now
open to us. And the
>> landscape is very much open to us; the
internet has come about so rapidly
>> that few have yet to
grasp its meaning and its potential, while its
>> particular
wonders have come about with such regularity that we have
ceased
>> to wonder at them, indeed would only wonder if the
wonders ever ceased.
>> A more intricate description of how
Project PM works may be found here.
>> Briefly, the
effort involves two major components. Both of these
components
>> operate within a network that I have designed
to take special advantage of
>> the internet's peculiarities
as medium while also avoiding those problems
>> that have
arisen almost universally within those communities to which
the
>> internet has given rise. The first network encompasses
commentators who
>> operate at least partially online -
mostly bloggers of the sort who got
>> their respective
starts as such, but also journalists who have begun
writing
>> for online outlets after initially working in
print, television, and radio.
>> The second network
encompasses everyone else - people with wildly varying
>>
skill sets, backgrounds, and physical locations across the globe, the
common
>> element being a great degree of erudition and
intellectual honesty as well
>> as a willingness to take
responsibility for the future of human society.
>> Both
networks are designed to grow exponentially while at the same
time
>> retaining quality; how this is achieved is explained
at the link above.
>> The first network will serve as the
most efficient possible means of
>> obtaining the most
important information as determined by the most capable
>> of
commentators; it will also serve to confront and engage the amoral
and
>> rudderless media infrastructure as it exists today,
combining forces on
>> occasion to focus attention on a
particular outlet or media figure who has
>> managed to
accrue some great deal of unearned influence and
respectability.
>> In concentrating on one particular target
by way of advance agreement,
>> participants will thereby
create the critical mass necessary to prompt the
>> major
outlets to address those of its own failures which otherwise
would
>> remain unknown to the general public. This tactic
will also be employed in a
>> more general way, as a means of
raising awareness of any particular topic
>> that the
mainstream media as a whole lacks the inclination to cover in
any
>> serious manner.
>> The second network will
serve to run all aspects of Project PM other than
>> those
handled by the other network. It is best thought of as a sort
of
>> ever-expanding House of Lords, at least during such
time as I retain control
>> of the project; after this body
has finished composing the more specific
>> procedures by
which it will operate on a day-to-day basis, the network
will
>> thereafter exist as something similar to that which
we saw in anarchist
>> Catalonia. At that point, I will be
stepping down from my current role in
>> order that the body
may carry out its other fundamental mission - to
>>
demonstrate the administrative viability of a technocratic
organization
>> operating under this particular network
schematic and recruited in such a
>> fashion as I have gone
about recruiting the several dozen members who have
>> joined
thus far, a process I will describe at a later date in order
to
>> provide others with the knowledge necessary to build
their own networks.
>> Similarly, the fundamental mission of
Project PM as an entity is to
>> encourage the development of
other, similar entities - self-perpetuating,
>>
self-governing organizations harnessing human talent from around the
globe,
>> operating as representative meritocracies and built
with the intent of
>> shaking up the existing order. Such
entities as I envision and hope to spur
>> on by example will
have numerous advantages over those more orthodox
>>
institutions on which man has relied for ten thousand years.
Collectively,
>> they will constitute a grand public
conspiracy against every manner of
>> nonsense.
>>
All of that is decades away, though. Here and now, we have the
specific goal
>> of improving the process of information
flow. As of this writing, I have
>> assembled a fine cadre of
bloggers with a collective monthly audience of
>> several
hundred thousand people, and each of these bloggers will soon
be
>> selecting others to connect to them within the network,
who will in turn
>> choose others, and so on. We have Allison
Kilkenny, an up-and-coming
>> commentator who deals in policy
like a cable anchor deals in cheery banter,
>> and who in
addition to her blogging hosts the satisfyingly wonkish
program
>> Citizen Radio along with her co-host and husband,
the comedian Jamie
>> Kilstein. We have Michael Hastings, who
served as Newsweek's Baghdad
>> correspondent and
afterwards covered the 2008 election, after which point he
>>
grew disgusted with the frivolous nature of political coverage in
this
>> nation and left a prestigious position in favor of
more virtuous pastures.
>> We have Charles Johnson, the
pioneering founder of the blog Little Green
>> Footballs who
was among the most widely-read of political bloggers until
he
>> found himself at odds with the bulk of his allies and
audience due to his
>> support for science and his opposition
to racism. I am also in talks with
>> other, similarly
prominent commentators and journalists who have likewise
>>
demonstrated themselves to be experts in their respective subject as
well as
>> intellectually honest with regards to all of them.
Meanwhile, the governing
>> network is thus far comprised of
academics of various sorts, programmers,
>> hedge fund
managers, global risk analysts, political activists, as well
as
>> individuals of no formal credentials but of
demonstrable honesty and
>> erudition - all the credentials
one requires in such an age as this, when
>> institutionalism
for institutionalism's sake is finally and happily
>>
threatened by the meritocratic dynamics of the internet and the
culture that
>> it has facilitated.
>> Today, I am
seeking to recruit skeptics for both of these networks; I
want
>> them to be as over-represented within Project PM as
they are
>> under-represented in the U.S. Congress and every
state legislature in the
>> U.S. If you are a blogger or
other media professional, get in touch. If you
>> are simply
a private citizen with a penchant for skepticism and the
desire
>> to take on those institutions which perpetuate
ignorance when they could
>> just as easily bring about
understanding, get in touch. We look back on
>> Houdini, on
Sagan, on the still-cantankerous Randi, and we see how much
they
>> have achieved for the world and the manner in which
the man on the street
>> perceives it. They did what they did
without the tools that we ourselves
>> have. The only failure
that awaits us is that which stems from failing to
>> follow
the example of those who stood up and acted in service to the
cause
>> of skepticism, which is itself the cause of
truth.
>> Barrett Brown
>>
barriticus@gmail.com>>
512-560-2302
>> April 22, 2010
>>
>> On
Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 1:51 AM, Barrett Brown <
barriticus@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>
>>> Okay, great. When would you
want the next column by? Trying to plan out my
>>>
month.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Barrett
Brown
>>> Brooklyn, NY
>>>
512-560-2302
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at
11:58 AM, <
SkeptInq@aol.com>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
Barrett,
>>>>
>>>> sorry for the
delay. Our web person left the company with only 2
weeks
>>>> notice - we weren't able to replace him in
that short of time - we are doing
>>>> some interviews,
but we are delayed on updating the site. I will try
and
>>>> have this done today,
however.
>>>>
>>>>
Barry
>>>>
>>>> In a message dated
3/18/2010 7:03:53 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
>>>>
barriticus@gmail.com
writes:
>>>>
>>>> Also, could you add to
the end of my bio, "Brown can be reached via
>>>>
barriticus@gmail.com"? I like to be able to receive
reader input and would
>>>> be particularly interested
in hearing from readers of the Skeptical
>>>>
Inquirer.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Barrett
Brown
>>>> Brooklyn, NY
>>>>
512-560-2302
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 18,
2010 at 1:07 PM, Barrett Brown <
barriticus@gmail.com>
>>>>
wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
Barry-
>>>>> Right, once a month, but I might
occasionally send the columns in a bit
>>>>>
early.
>>>>> Also, regarding the "distributed
cartel" I mention in my bio - are you
>>>>> in touch
with any good bloggers, specializing in skepticism or
otherwise,
>>>>> who might be interested in taking a
look at my project proposal? Briefly,
>>>>> I've
recruited several prominent folks and am in talks with the producers
at
>>>>> True/Slant and the editor of The New York
Observer (for whom I'm about to
>>>>> start writing
anyway) regarding setting up what I intend to be a
vastly
>>>>> improved means of distributing
information. I've pasted a rough draft
>>>>> summary
of the network below in case you'd like to learn more. Let me
know
>>>>> if you can think of anyone who might be
interested in talking with me
>>>>> further about
this; now that I'm done with the other book, this is going
to
>>>>> be my main project for quite a while, and I
believe it to be sufficiently
>>>>> viable that
clever folks who wish to see improvements in the media
would
>>>>> find it worth their time to get
involved.
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
Barrett
>>>>>
>>>>> Project PM
Network Summary
>>>>> The institutions and
structures that have developed over the past
two
>>>>> decades of accelerating public internet
use have had what we reasonably
>>>>> describe as a
wholesome effect on information flow. But the information
age
>>>>> is a work in progress, and thus there are
potential improvements to be made.
>>>>> More
importantly, there are improvements that can be made by an
initially
>>>>> small number of influential
participants working in coordination. The
>>>>>
purpose of Project PM is to implement these solutions to the extent
that
>>>>> participants are collectively able to do
so, as well as to demonstrate the
>>>>> beneficial
effects of these solutions to others that they might be
spurred
>>>>> to recreate or even build upon them
independently of our own
efforts.
>>>>>
>>>>> The
Problems
>>>>>
>>>>> Project PM is
intended to address the following
inefficiencies:
>>>>>
>>>>> (a)
Watering down of contributor quality within
participatory
>>>>> networks: Open institutions
such as
reddit.com tend to peak in terms of
the
>>>>> erudition of the content conveyed a few
years after coming about, with this
>>>>> being due
to the particular dynamics of network growth. By definition,
early
>>>>> users are early adapters, who themselves
tend to be better-informed and
>>>>> otherwise
relatively capable in terms of the value they bring to
the
>>>>> network. To even know of such networks
early in their existence is to pass a
>>>>> certain
sort of test regarding the potential quality of one's
contributions;
>>>>> as knowledge of the network
expands, this "test" becomes easier, and to
the
>>>>> extent that it does, the network is less
"protected" from those who did not
>>>>> pass such a
test by virtue of the fact that they did not know of the
network
>>>>> until knowledge became more common.
Obviously, failing to be aware of some
>>>>>
particular institution does not come anywhere near precluding one from
being
>>>>> intelligent and knowledgable in general
and thus of value to the
>>>>> institution, but the
influx of valuable participants versus
damaging
>>>>> participants appears to decrease
after a certain level of notoriety is
>>>>> reached.
Again, the decline in the intellectual relevance of content
at
>>>>>
reddit.com is a good
example of this.
>>>>> (b) Data overflow: The
watering down process described above does not
>>>>>
only result in one coming across information of relatively low
quality, but
>>>>> also in having to contend with
more of it. On
reddit.com, for instance, a
>>>>>
user who scans new submissions will find not only a certain amount
of
>>>>> potentially useful information, but also
some amount of almost certainly
>>>>> useless
information. The watering down of contributor quality
also
>>>>> contributes to the extent to which the
latter is perpetuated within the
>>>>> network
itself insomuch as that lesser contributors are more likely to
vote
>>>>> up useless information, thus helping to
ensure that the barriers built into
>>>>> the
network in order to facilitate the viewing of important rather
than
>>>>> unimportant content - in this case, a
pre-established threshold of up votes
>>>>>
necessary to bring something to the front page - will thereby lose
their
>>>>> effectiveness.
>>>>>
(c) Barriers to obtaining raw data: The obvious fact of data
overflow -
>>>>> that some data is more useful than
other data - is dealt with by means of
>>>>>
selecting certain sources of information which one has identified as
being a
>>>>> provider of quality output relative to
other sources. Bloggers and others
>>>>> who require
a steady stream of data in order to operate have certain
methods
>>>>> of obtaining that data, and there is
of course no reason to believe that any
>>>>> of
these methods could not be improved upon to an extent that
these
>>>>> improvements would be worth adapting.
One has RSS feeds flowing from sources
>>>>> one has
selected (and by virtue of having been selected, the sources
must
>>>>> have been necessarily known to the
blogger in the first place); one has
>>>>>
algorithm-based sites like Memorandum.com (which merely shows what
bloggers
>>>>> are talking about rather than
necessarily providing any insight into what
>>>>>
they should be talking about); one has democratic or pseudo-democratic
sites
>>>>> such as
reddit.com and
digg.com; and one has the fundamentally
one-way
>>>>> outlets of television and newspapers,
the content of which is decided upon
>>>>> by a
handful of producers or editors (who themselves are working within
an
>>>>> incidental structure that does not appear
to be of much value relative to
>>>>> what may now
be found among the better portions of the blogosphere). A
means
>>>>> of obtaining data that improves upon
these and all other methods would be of
>>>>> great
utility insomuch as that the quality of data is of course one
major
>>>>> limiting factor with regards to the
quality of output..
>>>>> The
Solutions
>>>>> By way of a network designed to take
better advantage of the existing
>>>>> informational
environment, Project PM can help to remedy the
problems
>>>>> described above without significant
effort on the part of participants, yet
>>>>> with
potentially dramatic results on the efficiency of information
flow.
>>>>> (a) Watering down of contributor quality
within participatory
>>>>> networks: Project PM
will greatly reduce the accumulation of
low-value
>>>>> contributors by way of the method by
which contributors are brought it. The
>>>>> network
will be established with a handful of contributors who have
been
>>>>> selected by virtue of intellectual
honesty, proven expertise in certain
>>>>> topics,
and journalistic competence in general. Each of these
contributors
>>>>> has the option of inviting into
the network any number of other bloggers,
>>>>> each
of whom will initially be connected only to the contributor who
brought
>>>>> him in. Each of these new participants
also has the option of bringing
>>>>> others into
the network in the same fashion as well as offering a
connection
>>>>> to any other participant, as will
anyone they bring in, and so on. To the
>>>>> extent
that the original participants are of value in terms of
their
>>>>> judgement, they may be expected to bring
in participants of similarly high
>>>>> value, and
so on; meanwhile, as the network expands, participants will
be
>>>>> likely to form new direct connections to
others whom they have determined to
>>>>> be of
particular value relative to other participants, and conversely,
to
>>>>> disestablish any direct connections they
might have established to those
>>>>> whose output
they find to be below par. Of course, none of this
precludes
>>>>> the network from eventually
encompassing participants of low desirability
>>>>>
relative to that of the average participant, but to the extent that
such a
>>>>> thing occurs, its effect are largely
neutralized by way of the dynamic
>>>>> described
below.
>>>>> (b) Data overflow: Information
flows through the Project PM network by
>>>>> way of
a single button accessible to each participant. When a
participant
>>>>> either writes or receives a blog
post or other informational element, the
>>>>>
participant may "push" the item, thus sending it to all of those with
whom
>>>>> he is directly connected in the network.
In such a case as a participant
>>>>> pushes forward
items that others may determine to be of little merit,
the
>>>>> resulting clutter is only seen by the
participant who brought such a
>>>>> low-value
blogger into the network in the first place, as well as those
whom
>>>>> the low-value blogger has to this point
brought in himself along with those
>>>>> who have
agreed to connect with him from elsewhere in the network. To
the
>>>>> extent that a given participant exercises
good judgment in establishing
>>>>> connections,
then, he will only receive informational elements of
value
>>>>> while also being able to quickly
transmit them to contributors who will be
>>>>> able
to make best use of such information. Meanwhile,
below-average
>>>>> participants will have only very
limited means by which to clutter the
>>>>> network,
as informational elements become less likely to be pushed
forward
>>>>> as they approach above-average
participants within the network, who
>>>>>
themselves are "buffered" from such things by way of the
competent
>>>>> participants with whom they surround
themselves by way of their connections
>>>>> and
who, by virtue of their competence, are unlikely to push
forward
>>>>> low-value
information.
>>>>> (c) Barriers to obtaining raw
data: The dynamics described
>>>>>
in (a) and (b) collectively provide for a means of
information inflow that
>>>>> should theoretically
be superior to any other medium currently in
existence
>>>>> in terms of overall quality, both by
virtue of the network's improved
>>>>>
organizational methods as well as the relatively high competence
of
>>>>> participating bloggers relative to members
of the traditional media outlets
>>>>> as a whole.
Accessibility to particularly valuable items of information
will
>>>>> be enhanced further by the option to set
one's widget in such a way as to
>>>>> display any
piece of information from the network, regardless
of
>>>>> "proximity," if such information is pushed
forward (which is to say,
>>>>> approved of other
participants) a certain number of times. This should
help
>>>>> to ensure that, as the network expands,
particularly valuable information
>>>>> does not
become unduly "regionalized." A variant on the widget for use
by
>>>>> readers (as opposed to network
participants) displaying information that
>>>>>
meets similar thresholds of popularity within the network would
likewise
>>>>> provide those readers with a source
of information above and beyond other
>>>>> existing
mediums.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:56 PM, <
SkeptInq@aol.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yep,
it's there. Drawback of being so far beind in my email.
Right
>>>>>> now we should shoot for once a month
on the
columns.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Barry
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In a
message dated 3/18/2010 12:39:47 P.M. Eastern Daylight
Time,
>>>>>>
barriticus@gmail.com
writes:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
Barry-
>>>>>> Great, I'll send you the next
column soon. I actually sent an invoice
>>>>>> to
Paul a couple days ago and copied you in on it; he seems to have
received
>>>>>> it as he asked for my SS number
afterwards. There should be a copy in your
>>>>>>
inbox.
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
Barrett Brown
>>>>>>
Brooklyn,
>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2010 at 12:35
PM, <
SkeptInq@aol.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
Hi
Barrett,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
the column is now up, see below. Remember, to send us an
invoice:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
Also, you would need to send us an invoice for the column.
You can
>>>>>>> email the invoice to Pat
Beauchamp at
pbeauchamp@centerforinquiry.net
and
>>>>>>> copy me as
well.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
Thanks
again
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
Barry
Karr
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
In a message dated 3/18/2010 12:03:51 P.M. Eastern Daylight
Time,
>>>>>>>
azoppa@centerforinquiry.net
writes:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
Here you
are.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/archive/category/all_info_all_ways>>>>>>>
--
>>>>>>> C. Alan
Zoppa
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
Web Developer
>>>>>>> Center for Inquiry,
Transnational
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
Open PGP: 0xF88C907E
>>>>>>> 5547 E44E B271
2ADB E921 568F 4B71 7C84 F88C
907E
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
On Wed, Mar 17, 2010 at 12:13 PM, <
SkeptInq@aol.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
________________________________
>>>>>>>>
From:
barriticus@gmail.com>>>>>>>>
To:
SkeptInq@aol.com>>>>>>>>
Sent: 3/12/2010 4:35:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight
Time
>>>>>>>> Subj: Re:
Lectures?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
Barry-
>>>>>>>> I've attached the proposed
logo for the column, which I'd like
to
>>>>>>>> entitle All Info All
Ways.
>>>>>>>>
Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Barrett
Brown
>>>>>>>> Brooklyn,
NY
>>>>>>>>
512-560-2302
>>>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010
at 9:01 AM, Barrett Brown <
barriticus@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
Hi, Barry-
>>>>>>>>> Glad you liked the
first column. I've attached a possible
headshot
>>>>>>>>> and pasted a brief
bio. I'll get back to you with a logo and title for
the
>>>>>>>>> column itself sometime in
the next couple of days. The first line of the
bio
>>>>>>>>> refers to a project that
is about to be announced.
>>>>>>>>>
Thanks,
>>>>>>>>> Barrett
Brown
>>>>>>>>> Brooklyn,
NY
>>>>>>>>>
512-560-2302
>>>>>>>>> Barrett Brown is
the instigator of Project PM, a distributed
cartel
>>>>>>>>> intended to reduce
certain structural deficits that have arisen in the
news
>>>>>>>>> media. He's a regular
contributor to Vanity Fair, The Huffington Post,
and
>>>>>>>>> True/Slant. His first
book, Flock of Dodos: Behind Modern
Creationism,
>>>>>>>>> Intelligent
Design, and the Easter Bunny, was released in 2007; his
second,
>>>>>>>>> Hot, Fat, and Clouded:
The Amazing and Amusing Failures of the
American
>>>>>>>>> Chattering Class, is
set for publication in 2010.
>>>>>>>>>
On Tue, Mar 9, 2010 at 9:37 AM, <
SkeptInq@aol.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
Hi
Barrett,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
Just had the opportunity to read the article - I enjoyed it a
great
>>>>>>>>>> deal and hope to
post it soon. I have it in editorial right
now.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
Would it be possible for you to send me a few sentence bio -
along
>>>>>>>>>> with a possible
title for the Column? Also a photo of yourself or some
art
>>>>>>>>>> work or column
logo to accompany the column would be
good. I can use
a
>>>>>>>>>> page shot of the
Skeptical Inquirer articles as a graphic to go into
this
>>>>>>>>>> article - any
other visuals you'd like to suggest would be good, perhaps
a
>>>>>>>>>> shot of a library with
rows and rows of books, and/or a computer
terminal
>>>>>>>>>> with the word
"Library" hung upon
it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
For column title & logo see for
example:
>>>>>>>>>>
http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/archive/category/curiouser_and_curiouser>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
Also, you would need to send us an invoice for the column.
You
>>>>>>>>>> can email the invoice
to Pat Beauchamp at
pbeauchamp@centerforinquiry.net>>>>>>>>>>
and copy me as
well.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks
again
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
Barry
Karr
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
In a message dated 3/4/2010 1:14:31 P.M. Eastern Standard
Time,
>>>>>>>>>>
barriticus@gmail.com
writes:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
Hi, Barry-
>>>>>>>>>> Sorry for the
delay in getting this to you. Here's the essay
I
>>>>>>>>>> mentioned to you a few
e-mails back; I was thinking of following
with
>>>>>>>>>> another one that goes
into more specifics as to how and in what
specific
>>>>>>>>>> manner that
skepticism and its products are perpetuated by the internet,
as
>>>>>>>>>> well as the potential
cultural consequences. I've pasted the first
one
>>>>>>>>>> below; let me know if
it works for you.
>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Barrett
Brown
>>>>>>>>>> Brooklyn,
NY
>>>>>>>>>>
512-560-2302
>>>>>>>>>> The Internet
and the Republic of Skepticism, Part
One
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
Having recently found myself in need of an anecdote with which
to
>>>>>>>>>> make some allegedly
clever point about man's track record in predicting
his
>>>>>>>>>> own technological
innovations, I recalled a story that had made the
rounds
>>>>>>>>>> in the months
leading up to 2000, during which time the nation's
periodicals
>>>>>>>>>> were running
retrospectives on the soon-to-be-completed 20th century.
Some
>>>>>>>>>> great number of the
resulting feature articles of that era ended
up
>>>>>>>>>> beginning with the same
account of a U.S. patent clerk who had resigned
his
>>>>>>>>>> post in 1899 with the
explanation that everything worth inventing
had
>>>>>>>>>> already been invented.
The incident seemed to me sufficiently amusing to
be
>>>>>>>>>> thrown in to the essay
as essay filler, which is the stuff that
writers
>>>>>>>>>> throw into essays
when they get sick of their own writing (unless I'm
the
>>>>>>>>>> only one who does
this, in which case the term does not actually exist).
At
>>>>>>>>>> any rate, the
story would serve as a fine illustration of the manner
by
>>>>>>>>>> which even attentive
individuals often overlook the indications that
great
>>>>>>>>>> change is afoot. A
few moments and Google search terms later, though, I
had
>>>>>>>>>> learned that this
oft-repeated anecdote was almost certainly
false.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
The patent clerk myth had been printed as fact in quite a
few
>>>>>>>>>> respected publications
throughout 1999 - this, despite that very same
myth
>>>>>>>>>> having been debunked
by The Skeptical Inquirer back in 1989. Ten years
after
>>>>>>>>>> the tale was shown
to be false, then, a number of professional
journalists
>>>>>>>>>> and their
fact-checkers got wind of it and determined it to be true.
Yet
>>>>>>>>>> another ten years on,
I recalled the tale and was able to determine it to
be
>>>>>>>>>> false - and after less
than half a minute of thing-clicking. This is
hardly
>>>>>>>>>> to my credit; I was
simply working in an informational landscape
vastly
>>>>>>>>>> superior to that
which existed a decade ago. For instance, humanity has
made
>>>>>>>>>> impressive strides
with regards to the results one may obtain by way
of
>>>>>>>>>>
thing-clicking.
>>>>>>>>>> Look back
to 1989, when the Skeptical Inquirer article in
question
>>>>>>>>>> was released.
Tens of thousands of people may have read the piece at
that
>>>>>>>>>> time and found it
interesting, but altogether the author was unable to
have
>>>>>>>>>> much positive impact
on the public understanding. The limitations of the
era
>>>>>>>>>> made it quite unlikely
anyone who read the piece would happen to be in
a
>>>>>>>>>> position to use the
information therein in any significant
manner;
>>>>>>>>>> conversely, those
who could have used the information in some way that
would
>>>>>>>>>> be of measurable
benefit were quite unlikely to have known that such
a
>>>>>>>>>> useful article existed,
much less been able to locate it, and thus it
was
>>>>>>>>>> that some dozen or so
feature editors ran the myth as fact. In terms of
its
>>>>>>>>>> utility to the public
understanding, then, the article might as well
not
>>>>>>>>>> even have existed
until it existed on the
internet.
>>>>>>>>>> Taken together,
the rise of the search engine coupled with
the
>>>>>>>>>> digitalization of vast
amounts of information that would have
previously
>>>>>>>>>> been either
difficult or impossible to access has provided us
with
>>>>>>>>>> unprecedented
opportunities to debunk that which requires debunking, as
well
>>>>>>>>>> as to ensure that a
given debunking is particularly accessible to those
who
>>>>>>>>>> happen to be looking
into a given subject. This is just as well; the rise
of
>>>>>>>>>> such things as e-mail
forwards have provided our
not-so-skeptical
>>>>>>>>>>
adversaries with similarly unprecedented opportunities to perpetuate
things
>>>>>>>>>> that need to be
debunked, which you've probably experienced to the
extent
>>>>>>>>>> that you're
included in the address books of people in whose address
books
>>>>>>>>>> you were not really
intending to be included. The question that
naturally
>>>>>>>>>> arises, then,
concerns whether the particular dynamics of the internet
have
>>>>>>>>>> had the overall
effect of fueling nonsense or throttling
it.
>>>>>>>>>> The reader will agree
that the extent and nature of the
stimuli
>>>>>>>>>> that one takes in
has some effect on the content one accumulates in
one's
>>>>>>>>>> mind; the reader
will just as readily agree that the internet has
some
>>>>>>>>>> effect in turn on the
extent and nature of the stimuli one takes in. To
the
>>>>>>>>>> extent that one uses
the internet, then, one is subjected to a
different
>>>>>>>>>> array of stimuli
than if one did not use the internet. We thus
establish
>>>>>>>>>> that the
internet does indeed have some effect on the content
one
>>>>>>>>>> accumulates in one's
mind.
>>>>>>>>>> Less immediately
obvious, though still fairly obvious, is
the
>>>>>>>>>> extent to which a
given medium has an effect not only on the
user's
>>>>>>>>>> knowledge base, but
even the structure of the mind itself, and thus in
turn
>>>>>>>>>> its potential
products. The adaptation of writing by the classical
Greeks,
>>>>>>>>>> for instance,
appears to have brought radical changes in the nature of
Greek
>>>>>>>>>> output, allowing for
a fundamentally greater degree of abstract thought
than
>>>>>>>>>> was previously
possible, and allowing in turn for systems of ethics and
high
>>>>>>>>>> philosophical
commentary of the sort that we do not seem to find in the
oral
>>>>>>>>>> output of the
pre-alphabet Greeks or any pre-literate culture, in
fact.
>>>>>>>>>> Plainly, this is an
extreme example, and the transition from orality
to
>>>>>>>>>> literacy is likely of
more severity in terms of the cognition of the
user
>>>>>>>>>> than is the
transition from the printing press to the internet (both
of
>>>>>>>>>> which are merely
sub-mediums by which literacy may be conveyed). Even
so,
>>>>>>>>>> the severity of the
former is of sufficiently high degree that the
lesser
>>>>>>>>>> severity of the
latter is nonetheless potentially quite great in its
own
>>>>>>>>>> right. The shift from
a textual environment defined by the printing press
to
>>>>>>>>>> one providing for the
internet as well, then, must have some
undefined
>>>>>>>>>> impact - perhaps
even a great one - on the cognitive abilities of those
of
>>>>>>>>>> us who have
participated in the transition, as well as those who will
have
>>>>>>>>>> grown up in the
post-transition era.
>>>>>>>>>> The
attentive reader will notice that we have yet to
establish
>>>>>>>>>> whether or not
the cognitive impact that we have determined to exist
along
>>>>>>>>>> with the impact on
one's knowledge base is a good or bad thing in terms
of
>>>>>>>>>> the mind's overall
functioning. The more widely-read attentive reader
will
>>>>>>>>>> notice that my
assertion to the effect that the internet has any
cognitive
>>>>>>>>>> effect at all is
itself controversial, and is in fact disputed by a
number
>>>>>>>>>> of prominent
neuroscientists and others whose views on the subject
would
>>>>>>>>>> presumably merit
attention. Before we continue, such objections ought to
be
>>>>>>>>>>
addressed.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
In January of this year, the publication Edge released
the
>>>>>>>>>> responses to a
question its editors had posed to dozens of
authors,
>>>>>>>>>> journalists,
artists, and scientists: "How is the internet changing the
way
>>>>>>>>>> you think?" The
results were picked up on by such mainstream
outlets
>>>>>>>>>> as Newsweek,
from which science editor Sharon Begley makes the
following
>>>>>>>>>>
observation:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
Although a number of contributors drivel on about, say, how
much
>>>>>>>>>> time they waste on
e-mail, the most striking thing about the 50-plus
answers
>>>>>>>>>> is that scholars
who study the mind and the brain, and who therefore
seem
>>>>>>>>>> best equipped to
figure out how the Internet alters thought, shoot down
the
>>>>>>>>>> very
idea.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
For instance, Harvard cognitive neuroscientist Joshua
Butler
>>>>>>>>>> responded to the
question in part by way of the
following:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
The Internet hasn't changed the way we think anymore than
the
>>>>>>>>>> microwave oven has
changed the way we digest food. The Internet has
provided
>>>>>>>>>> us with
unprecedented access to information, but it hasn't changed what
we
>>>>>>>>>> do with it once it's
made it into our heads. This is because the
Internet
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't (yet)
know how to think. We still have to do it for ourselves,
and
>>>>>>>>>> we do it the
old-fashioned way. Until then, the Internet will continue to
be
>>>>>>>>>> nothing more, and
nothing less, than a very useful, and very dumb,
butler.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
Others, including others with backgrounds in neuroscience as
well
>>>>>>>>>> as psychology and
related fields, expressed agreement with this
general
>>>>>>>>>> conclusion, if not
necessarily for the same reasons. And thus Begley
is
>>>>>>>>>> correct to note that
"scholars who study the mind and brain" dismiss
the
>>>>>>>>>> idea that "the
internet alters thought." But as she herself makes
clear
>>>>>>>>>> later in her piece,
other scholars of similar and even identical areas
of
>>>>>>>>>> expertise entirely
embrace the idea, while still others identify it as
a
>>>>>>>>>> reasonable possibility.
One might wonder how it is that Begley decided
that
>>>>>>>>>> the "most striking
thing" about the answers is that some
mind-oriented
>>>>>>>>>> scholars
dismissed the idea of the internet's impact on thinking,
rather
>>>>>>>>>> than that other
mind-oriented scholars embraced it. Begley herself
quotes
>>>>>>>>>> several of the
latter grouop, and even makes her own passing reference
to
>>>>>>>>>> "the (few) positive
changes in thinking the Internet has caused"
after
>>>>>>>>>> having quoted
additional experts who likewise ascribe to the concept of
the
>>>>>>>>>> internet having an
effect on the thinking of its users, although
considering
>>>>>>>>>> such changes
to be largely negative. One might conclude that the truly
"most
>>>>>>>>>> striking thing"
about the results is that mind-oriented experts are in
fact
>>>>>>>>>> split three ways on
whether the internet has positive, negative, or
no
>>>>>>>>>> effects whatsoever on
the mental processes of those who use it, while
others
>>>>>>>>>> consider the truth
to be as of yet
undetermined.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
Of those opinions expressed to the effect that internet use
has
>>>>>>>>>> either no or negative
effects, several appear not to make much sense.
Begley
>>>>>>>>>> provides a briefer
version of the following excerpt from the answer
given
>>>>>>>>>> by Foreign
Policy contributing editor Evgeny
Morozov:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
What I find particularly worrisome with regards to the
"what"
>>>>>>>>>> question is the
rapid and inexorable disappearance of retrospection
and
>>>>>>>>>> reminiscence from our
digital lives. One of the most significant
but
>>>>>>>>>> overlooked Internet
developments of 2009 — the arrival of the
so-called
>>>>>>>>>> "real-time Web",
whereby all new content is instantly indexed, read,
and
>>>>>>>>>> analyzed — is a potent
reminder that our lives are increasingly lived in
the
>>>>>>>>>> present, completely
detached even from the most recent of the
pasts...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
... In a sense, this is hardly surprising: the social beast
that
>>>>>>>>>> has taken over our
digital lives has to be constantly fed with the
most
>>>>>>>>>> trivial of ephemera.
And so we oblige, treating it to countless
status
>>>>>>>>>> updates and
zetabytes of multimedia (almost a thousand photos are
uploaded
>>>>>>>>>> to Facebook every
second!). This hunger for the present is deeply
embedded
>>>>>>>>>> in the very
architecture and business models of social networking
sites.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
Regardless of what one thinks of Facebook, it is difficult to
see
>>>>>>>>>> that Morozov has
really shown that an obsession with photos and
other
>>>>>>>>>> records of the past
somehow denotes some unseemly and unwarranted
"hunger
>>>>>>>>>> for the present."
It would be even more difficult to see how the nature
of
>>>>>>>>>> the internet, which has
provided unprecedentedly facilitated access to
the
>>>>>>>>>> whole of the past at
least to the extent that the past has been recorded,
is
>>>>>>>>>> of any greater
detriment to man's collective focus on that which came
before
>>>>>>>>>> him. Sitting in an
easy chair in some unscrubbed corner of Brooklyn, I
may
>>>>>>>>>> obtain, within just a
few seconds, a general summary of any known event
in
>>>>>>>>>> the history of man or
nature, coupled with links to more specific
and
>>>>>>>>>> comprehensive sources
of information on some great number of aspects of
such
>>>>>>>>>> an event, including
those pieces of data from which the general summary
was
>>>>>>>>>> originally composed in
the first place. How long would this have taken
in
>>>>>>>>>> the 1950s, even for
someone with the advantage of residing in some
cultural
>>>>>>>>>> node equipped
with fine libraries, universities, and potentially
accessible
>>>>>>>>>> experts? It
would have likely taken at least an hour even in such an
optimal
>>>>>>>>>> environment as the
grounds of a university, which is the sort of place
that
>>>>>>>>>> not even a student is
likely to be at any given moment, if memory
serves,
>>>>>>>>>> which it very well
may not. It would certainly not have taken a mere
ten
>>>>>>>>>> seconds, as it would
today for me to learn something about, for
instance,
>>>>>>>>>> the
Russo-Japanese War. Incidentally, I just Googled that term, clicked on
a
>>>>>>>>>> link to its Wikipedia
article, browsed the table of contents found at
the
>>>>>>>>>> top of that page, went
straight to a subsection of that article, read
the
>>>>>>>>>> assertion that
Japanese civilians were on the whole not particularly
happy
>>>>>>>>>> with the extent to
which Japan pressed Russia for concessions after
its
>>>>>>>>>> victory, and then
verified that this was the case by clicking on a
citation
>>>>>>>>>> which in turn led
me to the text of a newspaper account of the treaty
in
>>>>>>>>>> question - a New
York Times article from 1905, itself one of the millions
of
>>>>>>>>>> artifacts to which our
predecessors would have been unable to receive
access
>>>>>>>>>> without some degree
of wasted time and difficulty, if at all. The past
has
>>>>>>>>>> never been anywhere
near as accessible, nor as accessed, yet some
complain
>>>>>>>>>> that the internet
has prompted us to become "completely detached" from
same
>>>>>>>>>> in the favor of the
present, which itself has never been so lacking
in
>>>>>>>>>> accessible content
relative to that which came
before.
>>>>>>>>>> Naturally, other
sorts of objections are raised in the
responses.
>>>>>>>>>> University of
California neurobiologist Leo Chalupa challenges
the
>>>>>>>>>> internet's utility in
a manner that does not seem to draw on his
relevant
>>>>>>>>>>
specialty:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
The Internet is the greatest detractor to serious thinking
since
>>>>>>>>>> the invention of
television. Moreover, while the Internet provides a
means
>>>>>>>>>> for rapidly
communicating with colleagues globally, the sophisticated
user
>>>>>>>>>> will rarely reveal
true thoughts and feelings in such messages.
Serious
>>>>>>>>>> thinking requires
honest and open communication and that is simply
untenable
>>>>>>>>>> on the Internet
by those that value their professional
reputation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
I know of no situation in which "honest and open communication"
is
>>>>>>>>>> necessarily tenable in
the first place, although Dr. Chalupa is correct
that
>>>>>>>>>> there is more to lose
in conveying unpopular thoughts by way of some
facet
>>>>>>>>>> of the internet,
which, as he notes, "provides a means for
rapidly
>>>>>>>>>> communicating with
colleagues globally" and which could thus be used to
more
>>>>>>>>>> widely convey some or
another expressed opinion thing that
would
>>>>>>>>>> consequently evoke
some negative reaction from one's fellows,
particularly
>>>>>>>>>> if one's
fellows are easily upset. But surely Mr. Chalupa has some
useful
>>>>>>>>>> information to
convey that will not enrage his colleagues, and at any
rate
>>>>>>>>>> one would expect that
the majority of the information he'd be inclined
to
>>>>>>>>>> disseminate by way of
the internet would be of value, and not damage,
either
>>>>>>>>>> to the world or to
his very own reputation. And surely the majority
of
>>>>>>>>>> accessible information
is worth being made available to the majority
of
>>>>>>>>>> connected humans, and
certainly the information to which one is likely
to
>>>>>>>>>> expose one's self on
the internet is, on the whole, accurate, and
thus
>>>>>>>>>> potentially useful.
Certainly there is misinformation to be found and
in
>>>>>>>>>> some cases believed,
and certainly there is some degree of
irrelevant
>>>>>>>>>> information
that one might be inclined to take in at the expense of
time
>>>>>>>>>> dedicated to other,
more useful pursuits. But the objection that
the
>>>>>>>>>> internet's
facilitation of information flow may damage one's
"professional
>>>>>>>>>> reputation"
due to one's colleagues being unable to handle one's awesome
yet
>>>>>>>>>> edgy ideas does not
strike me as a particularly damning condemnation of
the
>>>>>>>>>> communications age,
although it may tell us something about
neurobiology,
>>>>>>>>>> which sounds
more and more
interesting.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
There are certainly downsides - of both the merely potential
and
>>>>>>>>>> nearly universal sorts
- to use of the internet, particularly if the
one
>>>>>>>>>> doing the using is
proceeding in an undisciplined manner. Even
its
>>>>>>>>>> advantages are
potential traps, as is known to anyone who has sought
out
>>>>>>>>>> data on some relevant
thing like Chinese wheat production only to end
up
>>>>>>>>>> spending two hours
learning the plots of various Japanese role
playing
>>>>>>>>>> games. The
potential for information addiction is real. But upon
the
>>>>>>>>>> harnessing of fire,
man must have wasted quite a bit of time staring into
it
>>>>>>>>>> even after having
properly utilized it in cooking his meals. Every
new
>>>>>>>>>> invention entails a
test of our will.
>>>>>>>>>> Still, I
will not cop out of this argument by suddenly
declaring
>>>>>>>>>> that we all have
free will and what will be will be, a tact that God
is
>>>>>>>>>> always taking out of
plain intellectual cowardice. Rather, I will note
again
>>>>>>>>>> that the views
expressed above regarding the internet's lack of impact
on
>>>>>>>>>> the human mind are
countered by views to the contrary held by
individuals
>>>>>>>>>> with just as
much claim to our attention by virtue of academic background
as
>>>>>>>>>> those with whom they
are in disagreement.
>>>>>>>>>> While
the credentialed debate the subject, we may in the
meanwhile
>>>>>>>>>> consider that
the perpetuation of information has, on average, been
a
>>>>>>>>>> positive thing for
humanity's station on the planet, where we were once
in
>>>>>>>>>> actual competition with
its other inhabitants but have since outran them
all
>>>>>>>>>> and are now preparing
to decide which of our old adversaries will get
to
>>>>>>>>>> accompany us to Mars.
Insomuch as that the knowledge we have gained
will
>>>>>>>>>> soon allow us to
spread the planet's life beyond the planet's own
confines
>>>>>>>>>> and thus to
perpetuate it well beyond its earth-bound potential, and to
the
>>>>>>>>>> extent that we favor
the perpetuation of life, we ought to agree that
the
>>>>>>>>>> process by which we
have obtained the means to accomplish all of this -
the
>>>>>>>>>> general uptrend in the
average human being's access to information -
might
>>>>>>>>>> very well be
something worth maintaining. And then we might remember that
no
>>>>>>>>>> one is seriously
arguing that the internet has not increased the
average
>>>>>>>>>> human being's
access to information. Whatever other effects it may have
on
>>>>>>>>>> our mind, it is at
least providing it with the unprecedented potential
that
>>>>>>>>>> comes with having
one's mind satiated as the mind wills. Likewise, it
brings
>>>>>>>>>> the revolutionary
novelty that arises when inviduals can obtain
any
>>>>>>>>>> information in any
combination, individuals being to some degree defined
by
>>>>>>>>>> the information that
informs his thoughts. No biologist should object to
the
>>>>>>>>>> mixing of genes; no
humanist should object to the mixing of
memes.
>>>>>>>>>> Though it has not
been proven that the internet has some
overall
>>>>>>>>>> cognitive effect
on its users that we would deem positive, those who
are
>>>>>>>>>> convinced that the
effect is largely negative or even non-existent have
yet
>>>>>>>>>> to compile any
airtight case, either. But if we ask the specific
question
>>>>>>>>>> regarding whether
or not the internet assists the cause of skepticism,
we
>>>>>>>>>> may show that it
assists the cause of information, and trust in
our
>>>>>>>>>> collective judgement
that the former has nothing to fear from the
latter.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
On Tue, Feb 9, 2010 at 4:28 PM, <
SkeptInq@aol.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
Hi
Barrett,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
No, I am open to most any topic within the area of
science,
>>>>>>>>>>>
pseudoscience, paranormal - you know Skeptical Inquirer type
skepticism.
>>>>>>>>>>> Not so
much anti-religion themes - unless they touch on miracle
claims,
>>>>>>>>>>> faith-healing,
creation vs. evolution,
etc.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
Best.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
Barry
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
In a message dated 2/4/2010 1:55:04 P.M. Eastern Standard
Time,
>>>>>>>>>>>
barriticus@gmail.com
writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
Hi, Barry-
>>>>>>>>>>>
Incidentally, is there a particular subject you're not
interested
>>>>>>>>>>> in having
covered, having already addressed it quite a bit over the
past
>>>>>>>>>>> couple of
years?
>>>>>>>>>>> I was thinking
of perhaps starting off with an essay on the
manner
>>>>>>>>>>> in which the
rise of the internet may perhaps have an effect on the
critical
>>>>>>>>>>> thinking and
general knowledge of some portion of those who grew up
with
>>>>>>>>>>> it/will grow up
with it that is similarly beneficial to the effect
that
>>>>>>>>>>> appears to have
been had on the classical Greeks upon the rise of
literacy;
>>>>>>>>>>> for
instance, do such new conventions as hyperlinks provide a
marked
>>>>>>>>>>> advantage in
determining the truth of a matter? The piece would also draw
on
>>>>>>>>>>> any studies in
existence which might provide data on this, aside from
some
>>>>>>>>>>> observations and
hypotheses I've made in the course of my own recent work
on
>>>>>>>>>>> the subject. Let me
know if this idea interests
you.
>>>>>>>>>>>
Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>> Barrett
Brown
>>>>>>>>>>> Brooklyn,
NY
>>>>>>>>>>>
512-560-2302
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
--
>> Regards,
>>
>> Barrett
Brown
>> Brooklyn, NY
>>
512-560-2302
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
Julia Lavarnway
> Assistant Editor, Skeptical Inquirer
>
Permissions & Assistant Editor, Free Inquiry
>
jlavarnway@centerforinquiry.net>
>
Center for Inquiry/Transnational
> 3965 Rensch Road
>
Amherst, New York 14228
>
--
Julia
Lavarnway
Assistant Editor, Skeptical Inquirer
Permissions &
Assistant Editor, Free Inquiry
jlavarnway@centerforinquiry.netCenter for
Inquiry/Transnational
3965 Rensch Road
Amherst, New York
14228