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