Maybe I don't quite understand this, um, essay (is it for historian of science?). But here goes: the problem that what one has to learn tends to overwhelm what one can learn in his lifetime seems an old one. That has also always been the problem, maybe except for philosophers of Greek time. What is a bizarre assertion the essay in the end (after digression to history of science) makes is that, basically speaking, wikipedia is the answer. Actually, wikipedia really doesn't quite add much value to the world. Just as the Internet facilitates communications, if in a historically unprecedented degree, wikipedia, despite its incredible success, is probably no more than a convenient tool to reach information that is already there. I mean, wikipedia strives to be such a tool, no more no less (e.g., no original research, verifiable statements beat truth). My background being in mathematics, wikipedia is quite boring in that I can't find any new idea or results, and I can only add stuff that doesn't excite me much anymore because I know them very well by now, and I can't add to wikipedia exciting new math knowledge I just acquired because my understanding on them needs refinement. I have too much respect for wikipedia to test my new knowledge. Wikipedia is supposed to be boring.
What interested me the most in the essay was actually my suspicion that each of us probably don't quite understand why we contribute to wikipedia at all. ( Wealth of networks by, umm, whom?, is the closed thing to answer this.) I was expecting to see something along the line of why to contribute here. I don't know why I contribute to wikipedia. Like said above, Wikipedia is intellectually speaking, boring.
-- Taku 06:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I wish you were coming to the NYC meetup so we could have a formal debate. You represent, to me, the intellectual side of factions that I passionately fight against (this is meant as a compliment). I might rightly be called a reductionist, but I'm actually fairly post-modern in my way of approaching matters. I might at some point write a parallel manifesto to yours, but I'm not sure if I will. Here are my thoughts:
The Enlightenment was dead almost from the get-go as witnessed by the reign of terror in France. The problem with Enlightenment philosophers is that they assumed a Western chauvinism that inherently contradicted their own views on "freedom". Landed, white gentlemen were enfranchised to the detriment of all other groups. Pseudoscientific rationales were invented to segregate and insure against revolution. As colonialism became the way that Europe raped the world, its science and technology just served as another means to subjugate. However, I submit that ultimately these applications were pseudoscientific as they lack the critical eye that science has relied on throughout human history. What was forgotten was that science was not invented by landed, white gentlemen. It was, in fact, invented by the very people Europe was bent on subjugating and exterminating. Triumphalist science (that is scientism) was intellectually dead from the get-go simply because it adopted the lie that science was somehow white, male, Christian, etc. Atom bombs are just the logical conclusion of what happens when you let such contradictions run rampant.
I'm slightly amused that you think that Wikipedia is so noble: it is only the latest attempt at public education. Like all previous attempts, though, it is fundamentally flawed because it carries with it the same baggage that started this mess in the first place. What ultimately needs to be addressed are the fundamental inequalities inherent in our society; unfortunately Wikipedia and the internet are just as ensconced in the chauvinism of the West as all other Western educational institutions that preceded them. It is, as Cleveland Brown says, a game "you don't win. You just do a little better every time."
I edit Wikipedia not because I believe in the project (I actually wish it didn't exist on most days). I edit Wikipedia because it is popular with my students. The moment they choose a different fad, I'll be on that bandwagon as well.
ScienceApologist 23:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I don't quite understand this, um, essay (is it for historian of science?). But here goes: the problem that what one has to learn tends to overwhelm what one can learn in his lifetime seems an old one. That has also always been the problem, maybe except for philosophers of Greek time. What is a bizarre assertion the essay in the end (after digression to history of science) makes is that, basically speaking, wikipedia is the answer. Actually, wikipedia really doesn't quite add much value to the world. Just as the Internet facilitates communications, if in a historically unprecedented degree, wikipedia, despite its incredible success, is probably no more than a convenient tool to reach information that is already there. I mean, wikipedia strives to be such a tool, no more no less (e.g., no original research, verifiable statements beat truth). My background being in mathematics, wikipedia is quite boring in that I can't find any new idea or results, and I can only add stuff that doesn't excite me much anymore because I know them very well by now, and I can't add to wikipedia exciting new math knowledge I just acquired because my understanding on them needs refinement. I have too much respect for wikipedia to test my new knowledge. Wikipedia is supposed to be boring.
What interested me the most in the essay was actually my suspicion that each of us probably don't quite understand why we contribute to wikipedia at all. ( Wealth of networks by, umm, whom?, is the closed thing to answer this.) I was expecting to see something along the line of why to contribute here. I don't know why I contribute to wikipedia. Like said above, Wikipedia is intellectually speaking, boring.
-- Taku 06:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I wish you were coming to the NYC meetup so we could have a formal debate. You represent, to me, the intellectual side of factions that I passionately fight against (this is meant as a compliment). I might rightly be called a reductionist, but I'm actually fairly post-modern in my way of approaching matters. I might at some point write a parallel manifesto to yours, but I'm not sure if I will. Here are my thoughts:
The Enlightenment was dead almost from the get-go as witnessed by the reign of terror in France. The problem with Enlightenment philosophers is that they assumed a Western chauvinism that inherently contradicted their own views on "freedom". Landed, white gentlemen were enfranchised to the detriment of all other groups. Pseudoscientific rationales were invented to segregate and insure against revolution. As colonialism became the way that Europe raped the world, its science and technology just served as another means to subjugate. However, I submit that ultimately these applications were pseudoscientific as they lack the critical eye that science has relied on throughout human history. What was forgotten was that science was not invented by landed, white gentlemen. It was, in fact, invented by the very people Europe was bent on subjugating and exterminating. Triumphalist science (that is scientism) was intellectually dead from the get-go simply because it adopted the lie that science was somehow white, male, Christian, etc. Atom bombs are just the logical conclusion of what happens when you let such contradictions run rampant.
I'm slightly amused that you think that Wikipedia is so noble: it is only the latest attempt at public education. Like all previous attempts, though, it is fundamentally flawed because it carries with it the same baggage that started this mess in the first place. What ultimately needs to be addressed are the fundamental inequalities inherent in our society; unfortunately Wikipedia and the internet are just as ensconced in the chauvinism of the West as all other Western educational institutions that preceded them. It is, as Cleveland Brown says, a game "you don't win. You just do a little better every time."
I edit Wikipedia not because I believe in the project (I actually wish it didn't exist on most days). I edit Wikipedia because it is popular with my students. The moment they choose a different fad, I'll be on that bandwagon as well.
ScienceApologist 23:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)