[XML-DEV Mailing List Archive Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries] [Reply To This Message] RE: Aggregated content, fact checking, PICS, Atom/RSS (was Rig
That is a good observation of the state of things today, Bob. I'm not sure it will hold for a long time. Efforts in the US Congress to create constraints for political blogging, for one example, can alter the at-will conditions for that activity. No, the US is not The Web, but just as US patent models are now proposed in Europe and resisted, many models are duplicated if a strong enough polity wants them. However, I concede the power of FOAF-like strategies. I also know they in no way are a measure of truth; just belief: a useful metric but not complete. It depends on the relationship of the assertion to the response as to what metrics are adequate. Townes, the co-inventor of the laser and maser endorsed intelligent design. For every idea somewhere between science and pseudo-science, there can be found an authority. Science does not rest on authority; sciene is a method, but belief in hypotheses can succumb to the fallacy of authority. Belief is not repeatable experiment. A scientific theory is not a street theory. The reason for citing the original article was to determine what if any assertions about *the technologies* were valid, not to determine if there are black helicopters (there are: used by special ops, and there are unmarked transport aircraft because they fly in and out of any major supply base: one has to prove what they are used for, not that they exist.) The principle of rationality is a weak predictor of human behavior, because even given a Nash equilibrium the bet that other players won't change their strategies is only a bet requiring perfect knowledge, and because some games are of the form RPS (rock paper scissors) and there is no winning strategy that does not involve meta-strategy (psych out opponent). As you say, don't bet on rationality. One can cry for 'the people's power in democracy' but that like any ideal pushed into absurdity of action has to be measured as any student of the French Revolution can tell you. One can also observe the 20th century history of the Poles to know where the other extreme is and what can come of persistence in pursuit of self-governance. No idea or hand alone turns the wheel; it can take many revolutions and many hands. So once again, we have to apply rigorous filters to any speech act commensurate with the actions one might consider given any instance of that act. Understanding these is likely to improve our actions if not eliminate false or misleading signals. Interesting thread, but not what I'd hoped for. len From: Bob Foster [mailto:bob@o...] My basic reaction is that the web at large is not a meritocracy, but a global marketplace of ideas and cheap thrills that is strongly resistant to control of any kind, including quality control. Yes, what makes scientific literature (and science itself) "work" is peer review. But the fact that you are published in reviewed journals does not mean that every stray thought you might blog is authoritative. Linus Pauling won two Nobel prizes and was widely regarded as a scientific genius but was something of a quack on the subject of vitamin C. His pronouncements on the latter were much more widely known than his scientific achievements. Does vitamin C prevent the common cold? Nope. But a generation thought it did, based on Pauling's endorsement. When the arena is political rather than scientific, peer review is a dream worthy of Quixote. Political ideologies are remarkably resistant to "facts", there are few repeatable experiments, etc. But I don't have to descend to politics. Consider the dismal science, which at its most objective studies the conformance of models to historical data and at its least promulgates a set of faith-based assertions, like "Unemployment rates below six percent are inflationary" and "Lowering taxes stimulates investment" which, like dot-com stocks, are only valuable to the extent they are believed to be valuable. No amount of peer review can filter out the non-science in conventional wisdom. Do you believe global warming is fact or fiction? There is a great deal of evidence on both sides and both are guilty of cherry-picking the evidence to support their preconceptions. Is Michael Chrighton right or wrong on this subject? Should his ideas be filtered through the scientific establishment? Do you really believe they could be? The brilliance of the web is that it is (mostly) uncensored, even by rationality. I don't expect this to change, and rather hope it won't.
|
PURCHASE STYLUS STUDIO ONLINE TODAY!Purchasing Stylus Studio from our online shop is Easy, Secure and Value Priced! Download The World's Best XML IDE!Accelerate XML development with our award-winning XML IDE - Download a free trial today! Subscribe in XML format
|