Does Wikipedia provide false authority to our sound-bite society?

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by coberst

Cedars

I call our society the sound-bite society because we so often consider the sound-bite or bumper-sticker to be sufficient knowledge for anyone. In that illusion we do not become very intellectually sophisticated.

As far as a bumpersticker response, whether or not it is appropriate would depend on whether it summed up the condition correctly or not.

~My H.S. dropout can beat up your honor student~

http://www.internetbumperstickers.com/

OK back to your soundbyte.... Are you saying that unless a person is intellectually sophisticated they shouldnt argue with you?

[TheFaithfulStone]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

When you said "we," you actually meant the first-person "I," referring to just yourself.

It's the royal we.

I'd argue that not all knowledge requires a sophisticated understanding of the subject. For example, I have a very general understanding of relativity. It is not sufficient to argue with Q about it, but it is sufficient to argue with your general FTL crackpot.

coberst is right in that you cannot have a sophisticated argument about gay rights with someone with an "Adam and Steve" bumper sticker - but that doesn't mean that you couldn't have a VERY in depth conversation with them about something else - like quantum physics, or agriculture, or welding, or electronics, or something.

Interestingly, the word "sophisticated" and "sophistry" have the same root word.

TFS

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by TheFaithfulStone

...coberst is right in that you cannot have a sophisticated argument about gay rights with someone with an "Adam and Steve" bumper sticker - but that doesn't mean that you couldn't have a VERY in depth conversation with them about something else - like quantum physics, or agriculture, or welding, or electronics, or something.

One important distinction.
You can have a very sophisticated argument with someone with an "Adam and Steve" bumper sticker. The presense of a bumper sticker does not mean that is the limit of their position. I would agree that you couldn't have a very sophisticated argument with their bumper sticker though

[TheFaithfulStone]

Fair enough. If the bumper sticker adequately represents their knowledge of the issue however - it would be difficil.

TFS

[Zythryn]

Originally Posted by TheFaithfulStone

Fair enough. If the bumper sticker adequately represents their knowledge of the issue however - it would be difficil.

TFS

Very true, however I don't believe that is the case.
True, sound bites and cute slogans are rampant in our society. I believe that you really can't place a well stated detailed argument on a car bumper, while a cute slogan will fit.

While I don't hold the average intellect in as poor esteem as you, I would agree that cute slogans have more infuence over people, even if they are not the limit of peoples knowledge.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Originally Posted by Zythryn

While I don't hold the average intellect in as poor esteem as you

Hey now! Didn't I just say you could have a discussion about quantum mechanics with the guy?

I think it's unfair to say that I hold the "average intellect [in] poor esteem."

TFS

[Southtown]

Originally Posted by coberst

Does Wikipedia provide false authority to our sound-bite society?

What is true authority?

[coberst]

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Okay, my understanding is thus. Perhaps you can confirm it's accuracy.

When you said "we," you actually meant the first-person "I," referring to just yourself.

Good point. Sometimes I say 'we' when I mean 'most others', sometimes I say 'we' when I mean 'I' and sometimes I say 'I' when I mean 'I'. I suspect all polite conversation is done in this manner. Certainly political talk is often done in this way. One recent example was when Hastert said we take the blame for this happening.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by Cedars

OK back to your soundbyte.... Are you saying that unless a person is intellectually sophisticated they shouldnt argue with you?

No Anyone who can put together a coherent argument should do so.

[coberst]

Originally Posted by TheFaithfulStone

It's the royal we.

I'd argue that not all knowledge requires a sophisticated understanding of the subject. For example, I have a very general understanding of relativity. It is not sufficient to argue with Q about it, but it is sufficient to argue with your general FTL crackpot.

coberst is right in that you cannot have a sophisticated argument about gay rights with someone with an "Adam and Steve" bumper sticker - but that doesn't mean that you couldn't have a VERY in depth conversation with them about something else - like quantum physics, or agriculture, or welding, or electronics, or something.

Interestingly, the word "sophisticated" and "sophistry" have the same root word.

TFS

I think that 'sophisticated' is a relative term and is one that has levels. It might be like the term 'hot'. A fourth grader is generally more sophisticated than a first grader, etc.

I would have assumed since both words start with 'soph'
that there would be some kind of relationship.