Quote:
|
Originally Posted by coberst
Does Wikipedia provide false authority to our sound-bite society?
The following is a paragraph from a Wikipedia entry for Thomas Kuhn’s book titled “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”.
Quote:
“The changes that occur in politics, society and business are often expressed in Kuhnian terms, however poor their parallel with the practice of science may seem to scientists and historians of science. The terms "paradigm" and "paradigm shift" have become such notorious clichés and buzzwords that they are viewed in many circles as being effectively devoid of content and their use in these contexts rarely has any firm foundation in Kuhn's original definitions.”
This paragraph gives us some insight into the dangers inherent in our sound-bite, bumper-sticker society, in which many people gain a small fragment of knowledge and from this fragment are deluded into thinking that they comprehend very complex ideas.
I am not much of a user of Wikipedia and thus have little knowledge upon which I can answer my own question.
|
Wikipedia, like any other source of information has its flaws and potential for errors. If I am not sure about wiki info, I do look for other things to support the statements. All around I have found it to be a good source of general information in some areas, and very detailed in others. Depends on the contributors involvement.
Reading your quote and conclusion, I dont know how you can state anyone would be deluded into thinking they have comprehended a complex idea. The quote is a warning that applying Kuhns book to such a broad range of ideas and functions is probably a mistake being as it seems, the authors intent was not to cover such a range. Personally I think its good to issue such a warning. Heres an example: people taking an idea (body language) and twisting it into something it wasnt meant to be used for (profiling for drugs).
After looking up the info regarding this particular book and the quote, your point isnt really about wikipedia is it, its about context and whether 'sound bytes' are an appropriate method of gathering information and creating your own opinion on the topic. If I am wrong about the intent of your post, I apologise for the points I am about to make.
People, with their diversity are going to be interested in a wide range of topics. Some may be very into mathematics (not me) but have no interest in birds and their habits. But a sound byte on the recovery of eagles may give the mathematician enough information to decide all the tax money that went to preserving habitat, the banning of DDT, and the fact that he could not build his house in a certain area to protect an active nesting tree, was a legitimate effort and one he/she could support.
Now put in a mother of 3 who does not have an interest in math or birds. Her interests may be in providing housing, feeding the children, getting them schooled. The sound bytes may or may not impress her opinion that the money spent on preserving habitat for eagles, would be better spent on schooling children. Her opinion, may or may not change with more information. Her interests and priorities are what they are. And it is her tax money that is being spent on this idea which she holds no interest in.
The mathematician may agree with the mother, feeling these are important issues too and figures out the cost ratio of tax dollars spent on habitat vs education and finds that the pennies per dollar will not make a significant impact on the three childrens education when divided up among all the other people.
The birder may think maybe she shouldnt have had 3 kids.
None of the three characters above is right or wrong with their interests or their opinions based on sound bytes. But sound bytes do provide information so ignorance on a topic is reduced and in the best case, they inspire someone to find out more, and provide enough information so the curious mind knows where to look (such as an authors name).
