Dear Mr. Brown,
If you'd like to submit this article to FREE INQUIRY, please note our
submission requirements. Thank you!
Secularly yours,
Tom Flynn
Editor, FREE INQUIRY
Executive Director, the Council for Secular Humanism
(www.secularhumanism.org)
P. O. Box 664
Amherst NY 14226-0664
(716)636-7571 ext 213
FAX (716)636-1733
Surface deliveries only:
1310 Sweet Home Road
Amherst NY 14228
________________________________
From: SkeptInq@aol.com [mailto:SkeptInq@aol.com]
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2010 11:25 AM
To: barriticus@gmail.com
Cc: SkeptInq@aol.com; tflynn@centerforinquiry.net
Subject: Re: Lectures?
Barrett
Sorry, it has been unusually insane here the last few weeks. I read over
the column, and although I did enjoy it, I don't think it is quite what I'd
want for the Skeptical Inquirer site. I could easily see the folks at Free
Inquiry using it, however. Let me copy it to the editor there, Tom Flynn,
and perhaps we can see what develops. I like to keep the religion
critiques to a minimum if possible on csicop.org
Best.
Barry
In a message dated 6/8/2010 3:09:52 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
barriticus@gmail.com writes:
Howdy, Barry-
Here's this month's column. Let me know if this works for you.
Otherwise, I can do another one that I'd been planning.
An Open Letter to Some Undetermined Number of American Elected
Officials
I am writing this missive, or "epistle," in hopes of receiving a few
clarifications from certain members of Congress as well as a far greater
number of officials serving in legislative and various other capacities
among the various states of what I have been informed is a Judeo-Christian
union.
Before making these inquiries, it would be appropriate for me to
apologize for the conduct of my fellow secularists, particularly those in
the skeptical community, for the terrible things that have been said about
those of you and your constituents who term yourselves "Bible-believing
Christians," Orthodox Jews, and, to a lesser extent, the conservative
Muslims who are generally excluded from your reindeer games despite sharing
many of your most fundamental values. I myself have even said and wrote some
of these awful things, but I can assure you that I only did it for the
money, and I needed the money because my wife was dying of cancer and of
course I needed to pay my divorce lawyer. I may be confusing myself with
Newt Gingrich, however. At any rate, I am sorry for the terrible things I
have written. It's just that I'm not a very good writer.
Now, to business. As you are no doubt aware, some great number of
religious officeholders and other national leaders have asserted that
secularism is, in fact, a religion. As of this moment, though, our religion
seems to be just as disorganized as Christianity was back in the 4th
century, when the respective followers of Bishop Athanasius and Presbytr
Arius fought bloody street battles over whether or not the Father and Son
were co-equals or whether the Father was in fact older and thus superior to
the Son. Back then, the issue was decided by the Emperor Constantius, and
then decided again with almost the exact opposite result by the Emperor
Theodosius, thereby establishing what became the doctrine of the Holy
Trinity. But then I am boring you with historical matters of which every
Christian congressman is no doubt already aware.
What I'm getting at, I assume, is that our secularist religion is at
a disadvantage to your Christian one, as we have no emperor to decide our
non-existent non-theological disputes on our behalf, and it will be at least
another decade before America falls under a dictatorship with the authority
necessary to establish some state-sanctioned leadership for us
non-believers, as was kindly done for your own predecessors. Rather than
wait around for that to happen, I hereby declare myself Pontifex Maximus
Americanus of the Secularist Religion, as Christopher Hitchens and Richard
Dawkins are both Brits, and Sam Harris... well, he's not here, now, is he?
In my apparent capacity of Pontifex Maximus, I do hereby submit the
following inquiry to the Congress of the United States on behalf of the
nation's secularists: why is it that our religion, as it has been publicly
deemed by such a great number of our congressmen and state officials, is the
only such religion of which the pertinent activities are not tax exempt? As
you are aware, the taxation of religious entities is unconstitutional due to
an, uh, activist Supreme Court which decided that the clause noting that
"Congress will establish no law..." could be interpreted as meaning that the
requirements demanded of everyone else cannot be demanded of Catholic
priests, Jewish rabbis, Protestant ministers, Islamic imams, and Hindu, uh,
holy guys, nor may their allegedly religious peripheral activities be
subject to any taxation of the sort that would be applied to those same
activities were they to be performed by those of us who ascribe to the
secularist religion.
This strikes me as unfair. I myself have made a number of
expenditures in the course of pursuing my secularist beliefs. I have, out of
sheer secularism, purchased both of Gore Vidal's autobiographies. Would it
be possible for me to write off these purchases retroactively after such
point as our constitutional rights to pursue our rituals without taxation is
enacted by act of Congress, subject of course to judicial review? And will
those of you who have characterized secularism as a religion be willing to
sponsor a bill that would prompt the federal government to recognize it as
such, preferably before the release of the next Vidal autobiography or the
one after that? More importantly, it would be a fine thing if those of our
secularist institutions which are currently incorporated under various less
advantageous legal frameworks could be speedily accommodated in their
transition to the status of churches, with all the benefits entailed
thereby. For instance, when I was a young man I worked for a time as a
furniture mover for a Pentacostal church which accepted donations of office
furniture, refurbished them a bit, and then sold them off to other
businesses. All of this was done without any taxes being paid whatsoever
because, after all, this was done under the purview of a "church." As for
the profits - well, the head of this church certainly had a fine penthouse
apartment, though to be fair, I should note that his wife's Bentley was at
least two years out of style. With that and endless other examples in mind,
I can think of any number of lucrative things that our new secularist
churches could do with similarly expansive tax exemptions. For instance, we
could legitimately advocate for our religion of secularism without
committing the sort of widespread federal tax fraud described by so many
Christians.
At any rate, I am delighted to know that I have so many allies in
Congress who agree with me that secularism is a religion and thus ought to
receive the same Constitutional protections as any other religion. I am so
grateful, in fact, that I have compiled a list of contact information for
those congressmen, former executive branch officials, and failed Mormon
presidential candidates who have proclaimed our absence of religious belief
to constitute a religious belief. I would write them all letters, but I
imagine that such current and former officials have other things they ought
to be reading, such as Thomas Jefferson's explanation as to why he tore out
large portions of the New Testament that were clearly nonsense, John Adam's
signature on the Treaty of Tripoli which itself noted that "the government
is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" as well as Adam's
own contempt for anyone who believed in the Trinity, Benjamin Franklin's
noting that the "Christian dogma" is "unintelligible," and everything Thomas
Paine wrote ever. Least of all do I wish to deter such congressmen from
reading the following excerpt from a letter James Madison wrote some number
of years after fathering our Constitution: "During almost 15 centuries the
legal establishment known as Christianity has been on trial, and what have
been its fruits, more or less in all places? THESE ARE THE FRUITS: Pride,
indolence, ignorance and arrogance in the clergy. Ignorance ... arrogance
and servility in the laity and IN BOTH CLERGY AND LAITY superstition,
bigotry, and persecution."
These men, who together have done more for human liberty than has
any collection of men before or after, are said to have been religious by
half of our modern population and half of our elected representatives as
well. I was even told myself by a clergyman, upon appearing on the wonderful
Fox News Channel, that "they were all spiritual people," and this sentiment
was seconded by the "moderator" of the debate in question. If such men who
say such things can be deemed spiritual people, than I, too, ought to be
considered spiritual, and thus the case for the religion of secularism is
strengthened further by way of the logic of our entirely logical Christian
countrymen.
Again, then, I do not wish to add to the reading lists of any
elected official whose help I will be seeking in getting this bill passed.
Instead, I will be calling them - hundreds of them, in fact, one by one. And
in my capacity as a reporter and contributor to such publications as Vanity
Fair, Huffington Post, and Pizza Today, I will be recording these phone
calls in order that I might relay the answers I receive with perfect
accuracy, as of course those congressmen that I am able to reach will all
have very reasonable answers to my very basic questions regarding the
implications of their public pronouncements; the alternative is that some
such recordings will end up being hilarious as the officials in question
struggle to figure out how to answer such simple queries on a topic of
apparently great interest to them. Of course, that would be unthinkable;
certainly the great bulk of the American citizenry would not be so
incompetent as to put in place hundreds of incompetent officials who don't
know basic history or even horse sense, and only some secular Eastern
elitist like John Adams or James Madison or Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin
Franklin or Thomas Paine could think so poorly of the American people as to
even consider such an insulting possibility. No, surely these recordings
will all depict the officials in question in a flattering light, which is
why they won't mind me posting them on the internet, or sending transcripts
to those local media catering to their constituents, or editing the best
portions and selling them as ringtones.
In conclusion, my cell phone plan provides for free unlimited
domestic calls and I have plenty of free time on my hands.
Sincerely,
Barrett Brown
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 3:20 PM, <SkeptInq@aol.com> wrote:
Hi Barrett, the column just went up on the
site a few minutes ago and we put a link onto our Skeptical Inquirer
facebook page.
Barry Karr
In a message dated 5/3/2010 12:09:24 P.M. Eastern Daylight
Time, SkeptInq@aol.com writes:
The first column was titled:
The Internet and the Republic of Skepticism, Part
One
<http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/internet_and_the_republic_of_ske
pticism_part_one>
by Barrett Brown
<http://www.csicop.org/author/barrettbrown>
All Info All Ways
<http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/archive/category/all_info_all_ways>
March 18, 2010
so, I guess this would be Part II
Barry
In a message dated 5/3/2010 12:05:30 P.M. Eastern
Daylight Time, aisaak@centerforinquiry.net writes:
Hey Barry,
What did you want me to use as a title for
this?
Thanks,
Adam
On Fri, Apr 30, 2010 at 12:02 PM, Julia
Lavarnway <jlavarnway@centerforinquiry.net> wrote:
Here's the edited version. I wasn't
sure what to put as a title, so it
doesn't have one as of now.
Julia
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 <http://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
<http://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 <http://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
<http://reddit.com/> and digg.com <http://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_curious
er
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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.net
Center for Inquiry/Transnational
3965 Rensch Road
Amherst, New York 14228
--
Regards,
Barrett Brown
Brooklyn, NY
512-560-2302
