When science meets media hype ...

Quote:

AUTHOR: Alexander Pope (1688-1744)

QUOTATION: A little learning is a dangerous thing; 1
Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian spring:
There shallow draughts intoxicate the brain,
And drinking largely sobers us again.

ATTRIBUTION: Essay on Criticism. Part ii. Line 15.

Fifty years later my mother's favorite quotations drop from my lips like family pearls.

0 Replies

I'm not surprised. The deluge of information now available through various resources can no longer be vetted fast enough. The media used to gain some value from differentiating between reality and fiction, but the Internet has generated so much data flow, that the media is no longer gaining much value from reporting accuracy. They are forced to compete by appealing to emotional fears and exaggeration.

Main stream media is being forced into a tabloid format by the sheer volume of information (valid and invalid) now pouring into people's lives, primarily through the Internet.

The next big advance in information technology will not be in retrievel, but in valuation. At present, only those who already have an understanding of subjects are efficient at extracting valid material on those subjects. Most of the information people are now exposed to is in an entertainment format.

Information needs to be rated against certain selected and defined standards. Then it becomes valuable. The first person to figure out how to do this online will have the next Google.

0 Replies

Your view seems to be an elitist position:

that only a select few are qualified to judge what information is valuable and what is not, and 'what it all means'.

Are you afraid that people will come to their own conclusions (which may differ from yours)?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Your view seems to be an elitist position:

that only a select few are qualified to judge what information is valuable and what is not, and 'what it all means'.

Your view seems to expect that I approach things from an elitist position, when I have said nothing of the sort. Why do you make such an assumption?

All I said was that information should be classified and vetted against some known foundation, science being one (but many classifications could be used).

real life wrote:

Are you afraid that people will come to their own conclusions (which may differ from yours)?

I offer to clarify information based on some known standards, and you read it as trying to prevent people from coming to their own conclusions? Get a grip RL, your paranoia is showing.

0 Replies

Ros,

It's funny how you cannot see how elitist your position is.

"Information needs to be rated........"

"Information ........can no longer be vetted fast enough....."

"only those who already have an understanding of subjects are efficient at extracting valid material on those subjects"

"I offer to clarify information........"

Sorry, Ros. The internet has made it impossible for a small group of people to manage and guide public perception and opinion.

(Your assumption seems to be that ALL information presented to the public at that time was 'valid' , as contrasted with the amounts of 'valid' and 'invalid' information that that naughty internet is 'pouring into people's lives' nowadays.)

No doubt you were more comfortable with the 'old way' when the mainstream media were virtually unchallenged.

That time is long gone, and never coming back.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

The next big advance in information technology will not be in retrievel, but in valuation. At present, only those who already have an understanding of subjects are efficient at extracting valid material on those subjects. Most of the information people are now exposed to is in an entertainment format.

I agree. That's why I'm donating to Snopes.com, a fact-checking site that busts urban legends. I can easily see how fact checking can grow larger and more professional than snopes, and I agree it would be important that it did.

real life wrote:

Your view seems to be an elitist position:

"Elitist" means a lot of things to a lot of people. What does the term mean to you? For example, would you find it better to say that a few people are much better at making shoes than everybody else? That a few people are much better brain surgeons than everybody else? If your answer is "yes", then rosborne979's answer is elitist, and I have no problem at all with elitism per se. Or is your answer: "no, shoemakers and brain surgeons are about specialisation *, not elitism"? In that case I agree with your definition, add that fact-checking is just another calling for people to specialize in, and that rosborne's position is not elitist.

* The spam filter seems to have a problem with "specialization" with an 's' in place of the 'z'.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
The next big advance in information technology will not be in retrievel, but in valuation. At present, only those who already have an understanding of subjects are efficient at extracting valid material on those subjects. Most of the information people are now exposed to is in an entertainment format.

I agree. That's why I'm donating to Snopes.com, a fact-checking site that busts urban legends. I can easily see how fact checking can grow larger and more professional than snopes, and I agree it would be important that it did.

What I envision as a mechanism to add value to information is some form of rating system in which various pieces of information are given an accuracy value in relation to some measurement system.

For example, an article on evolution might be given a 100% accuracy rating agains some pre-defines science standard. The same article might be given a 50% accuracy rating agains a theolgical standard, and a 0% accuracy rating against a literalist christian standard.

I can see a large number of "standards" evolving on the Internet as a base of measurement, different people preferring different standards (and small groups arguing that 'their personal' standard might not be represented, Realiens for example).

A few basic standards will probably percolate to the top of relevant searches, much as active web sites percolate to the top of search engines.

The trick is to figure out how to 'evaluate' each bit of information and to tag it with an accuracy rating. In science this happens with peer review, but I'm not sure how to do it online without hiring staffs of analysts specializing in each standard.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Ros,

It's funny how you cannot see how elitist your position is.

"Information needs to be rated........"

"Information ........can no longer be vetted fast enough....."

"only those who already have an understanding of subjects are efficient at extracting valid material on those subjects"

"I offer to clarify information........"

Sorry, Ros. The internet has made it impossible for a small group of people to manage and guide public perception and opinion.

(Your assumption seems to be that ALL information presented to the public at that time was 'valid' , as contrasted with the amounts of 'valid' and 'invalid' information that that naughty internet is 'pouring into people's lives' nowadays.)

No doubt you were more comfortable with the 'old way' when the mainstream media were virtually unchallenged.

That time is long gone, and never coming back.

You're so far off base I'm not even sure where to begin.

Have a look at the system I described for Thomas and see if you still think I'm being 'elitist'. If so, please use an example, because I just don't see what you're talking about yet.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

What I envision as a mechanism to add value to information is some form of rating system in which various pieces of information are given an accuracy value in relation to some measurement system.

For example, an article on evolution might be given a 100% accuracy rating agains some pre-defines science standard. The same article might be given a 50% accuracy rating agains a theolgical standard, and a 0% accuracy rating against a literalist christian standard.

I'm skeptical that you can do this with with any tests mechanical enough to be run by a computer. But if you find a way to do it, please sell me some shares of your startup while they're still cheap.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
What I envision as a mechanism to add value to information is some form of rating system in which various pieces of information are given an accuracy value in relation to some measurement system.

For example, an article on evolution might be given a 100% accuracy rating agains some pre-defines science standard. The same article might be given a 50% accuracy rating agains a theolgical standard, and a 0% accuracy rating against a literalist christian standard.

I'm skeptical that you can do this with with any tests mechanical enough to be run by a computer. But if you find a way to do it, please sell me some shares of your startup while they're still cheap.

Exactly.

I haven't figured out a way to automate it either. If I could, I would probably be rich. But it doesn't mean I've given up thinking about how to do it.

Newspapers used to vet sources (some still do), and that gives they some level of credibility. Business people still prefer the Wall St. Journal over the Enquirer for business ananysls Smile

Newspapers obviously found a way to pay the costs of research and still make a profit. I'm sure a similar process could still be profitable with a limited information flow. The real problem is dealing with the sheer volume of information on the Net.

If we get to the point where people on the web are willing to pay for access to information which has been vetted in some way, then it may become effective to hire armies of classification specialists. But we're probably a long way off from that.

Nice thread by the way. Thanks.

0 Replies

The conceit of the somewhat wise

real life wrote:

Your view seems to be an elitist position:

that only a select few are qualified to judge what information is valuable and what is not, and 'what it all means'.

Are you afraid that people will come to their own conclusions (which may differ from yours)?

The real conceit here is that you think you can be fed significant disinformation and that you are wise enough to see through it. Everyone realizes that the Internet is full of junk, but somehow everyone also thinks that they can see through it to reach the correct conclusion by looking the the distorted data themselves. The reality is that there ARE really a select few who are familiar enough with any given issue to speak to it intelligently. The rest of us think we're pretty sharp and we can sift through the agendas of those who are purposefully distorting science for their purposes, but we rarely have the time to properly research an issue. STATS.org published an article coining a new term for our affliction, Upper Middle Class Syndrome (UMCS). Read the article; it is worth five minutes.

0 Replies

Re: The conceit of the somewhat wise

engineer wrote:

real life wrote:
Your view seems to be an elitist position:

that only a select few are qualified to judge what information is valuable and what is not, and 'what it all means'.

Are you afraid that people will come to their own conclusions (which may differ from yours)?

The real conceit here is that you think you can be fed significant disinformation and that you are wise enough to see through it. Everyone realizes that the Internet is full of junk, but somehow everyone also thinks that they can see through it to reach the correct conclusion by looking the the distorted data themselves. The reality is that there ARE really a select few who are familiar enough with any given issue to speak to it intelligently. The rest of us think we're pretty sharp and we can sift through the agendas of those who are purposefully distorting science for their purposes, but we rarely have the time to properly research an issue. STATS.org published an article coining a new term for our affliction, Upper Middle Class Syndrome (UMCS). Read the article; it is worth five minutes.

No, the real joke is that many, including rosborne, seem to think that 'junk information' was born with the internet, and that the mainstream media (big city newspapers, TV news, etc ) are a model of 'vetting information' and sifting fact from fiction. What a joke.

The mainstream media has repeatedly been shown to carry a heavy political bias and is populated by the same kind of fallible humans as the internet is. There is NO difference.

ALL of us have our biases and no matter what the source of information, a reasonable person is gonna have to sift thru it and separate opinion from data, etc.

Propaganda comes in all shapes, sizes and forms and you'd better believe that ANYONE who publicizes information of any kind does it for a REASON and has a VIEWPOINT that they believe is correct (and therefore you should see things the way they see them. It's simple, isn't it?)

What makes you think that any of us is more objective than another? Don't kid me, and don't kid yourself.

Cheers, engineer. Cool

0 Replies

Re: The conceit of the somewhat wise

real life wrote:

No, the real joke is that many, including rosborne, seem to think that 'junk information' was born with the internet,

I never said that. Pseudoscience and junk information wasn't born with the Internet, otherwise we wouldn't have Snake Oil Salesmen, Astrology and Alchemy in our history.

However, I do believe that the amount of junk information has increased due to the general increase of information available on the Internet.

real life wrote:

and that the mainstream media (big city newspapers, TV news, etc ) are a model of 'vetting information' and sifting fact from fiction. What a joke.

Many mainstream media traditionally made their livelihood by vetting information, and many still do. They vet it for factual accuracy. They also 'spin it' because they're human, but that's why we have multiple sources. They are vetting information against some stated standard (usually factual accuracy). You may not agree with whatever standards they are using, but that doesn't change the fact that they are evaluating their material against a standard. For example, the Wall St. Journal is producing material which it considers economically accurate. If they started producing tabloid level articles on investement they would lose their reader base.

The information now available on the Internet is a mix of tabloid style information and vetted information, yet there are few markers which identify what style of information you are looking at. For example, naturopathic medicine is a growing business, and if you look at their web pages, you might think you're looking at a hospital or medical facility run by MD's, but you're not. It takes a bit of research to see that most MD's think Naturopathic medicine is quackery.

Then again, it comes down to who you believe... if you think the MD's are corrupt or idiots, then you may prefer to believe the other people. But the information can still be rated against common standards. If you just plain don't trust anyone to evaluate anything honestly, then you have a whole different problem: Paranoia.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Ros,

It's funny how you cannot see how elitist your position is.

"Information needs to be rated........"

"Information ........can no longer be vetted fast enough....."

"only those who already have an understanding of subjects are efficient at extracting valid material on those subjects"

"I offer to clarify information........"

Sorry, Ros. The internet has made it impossible for a small group of people to manage and guide public perception and opinion.

(Your assumption seems to be that ALL information presented to the public at that time was 'valid' , as contrasted with the amounts of 'valid' and 'invalid' information that that naughty internet is 'pouring into people's lives' nowadays.)

No doubt you were more comfortable with the 'old way' when the mainstream media were virtually unchallenged.

That time is long gone, and never coming back.

Oh yes, that is SO elitist.

Why don't we set up a campaign to let the common man off the street do brain surgery? I mean, it's so elitist to only allow people who've been trained in brain surgery to actually do brain surgery.

Seriously, the word elitist has been spouted so many times it's lost all meaning. Just like, the word, freedom.

0 Replies

Wolf_ODonnell wrote:

real life wrote:
Ros,

It's funny how you cannot see how elitist your position is.

"Information needs to be rated........"

"Information ........can no longer be vetted fast enough....."

"only those who already have an understanding of subjects are efficient at extracting valid material on those subjects"

"I offer to clarify information........"

Sorry, Ros. The internet has made it impossible for a small group of people to manage and guide public perception and opinion.

(Your assumption seems to be that ALL information presented to the public at that time was 'valid' , as contrasted with the amounts of 'valid' and 'invalid' information that that naughty internet is 'pouring into people's lives' nowadays.)

No doubt you were more comfortable with the 'old way' when the mainstream media were virtually unchallenged.

That time is long gone, and never coming back.

Oh yes, that is SO elitist.

Why don't we set up a campaign to let the common man off the street do brain surgery? I mean, it's so elitist to only allow people who've been trained in brain surgery to actually do brain surgery.

Seriously, the word elitist has been spouted so many times it's lost all meaning. Just like, the word, freedom.

Things do tend to lose meaning when repetitive hyperbole is invoked, as in your post, Wolf.

Reading with a skeptical eye and discerning the difference between data and opinion is hardly the equivalent of brain surgery, is it?

0 Replies

Re: The conceit of the somewhat wise

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
No, the real joke is that many, including rosborne, seem to think that 'junk information' was born with the internet,

I never said that. Pseudoscience and junk information wasn't born with the Internet, otherwise we wouldn't have Snake Oil Salesmen, Astrology and Alchemy in our history.

However, I do believe that the amount of junk information has increased due to the general increase of information available on the Internet.

real life wrote:
and that the mainstream media (big city newspapers, TV news, etc ) are a model of 'vetting information' and sifting fact from fiction. What a joke.

Many mainstream media traditionally made their livelihood by vetting information, and many still do. They vet it for factual accuracy. They also 'spin it' because they're human, but that's why we have multiple sources. They are vetting information against some stated standard (usually factual accuracy). You may not agree with whatever standards they are using, but that doesn't change the fact that they are evaluating their material against a standard. For example, the Wall St. Journal is producing material which it considers economically accurate. If they started producing tabloid level articles on investement they would lose their reader base.

The information now available on the Internet is a mix of tabloid style information and vetted information, yet there are few markers which identify what style of information you are looking at. For example, naturopathic medicine is a growing business, and if you look at their web pages, you might think you're looking at a hospital or medical facility run by MD's, but you're not. It takes a bit of research to see that most MD's think Naturopathic medicine is quackery.

Then again, it comes down to who you believe... if you think the MD's are corrupt or idiots, then you may prefer to believe the other people. But the information can still be rated against common standards. If you just plain don't trust anyone to evaluate anything honestly, then you have a whole different problem: Paranoia.

Well, ros, you mentioned 'vetting' scientific information for example.

If you had your system set up, would you allow someone who is a PhD but disagrees with you on the evolution issue to 'vet' information in his area of expertise?

He obviously has the 'knowledge' you said was required.

Would your opinion keep your army of vetters exclusively pro-evolution?

Or would you issue his work, but with a special disclaimer that you wouldn't use on the work of a pro-evolution employee?

0 Replies

Re: The conceit of the somewhat wise

real life wrote:

Well, ros, you mentioned 'vetting' scientific information for example.

If you had your system set up, would you allow someone who is a PhD but disagrees with you on the evolution issue to 'vet' information in his area of expertise?

He obviously has the 'knowledge' you said was required.

Would your opinion keep your army of vetters exclusively pro-evolution?

In the case of science, there is already a peer review process in place which pretty much defines 'accepted' scientific facts.

All we would need is for someone to rate the accuracy of a piece of information as it relates to the scientific standard. The people rating the information wouldn't be commenting on their own opinion of its truth, only on how closely it matches whatever standard it was being measured against.

For example, a buddhist theology professor could still rate an article on Christianity based on how closely it matched certain standards, regardless of his personal opinion of christianity.

Note however that the buddhist theology professor must exhibit knowledge of christianity. Likewise, anyone evaluating the science standard must exhibit knowledge of science (preferrably by passing college level PHD requirements).

Also, any business which sells 'vetting services' such as we are describing would naturally want to keep its customers satisfied, so any sheenanigans which went on in the analysis would adversely affect the veracity of their own product and cause them to lose customers and go out of business (a self regulating system).

To be honest, I'm not sure of all the details and pitfalls in a system like this. I haven't put enough thought into it yet to build an actual functional system. That's partly because I don't see a way to implement it and make an online business out of it. But as I mentioned before, anyone who figures out how to do this will have a way to add value to raw information, that adding value means $$$$$. Eventually, I'm sure some form of this will evolve in online systems.

0 Replies

Doesn't your own body give you all the information you need?

You lot sound like a bloke who runs twenty miles everyday with a haversack full of bricks on his back and takes Viagra to help extend his misery and is trying to make himself sound sane.

I wouldn't surprise me if you did ice-baths and lawn mowing.

0 Replies

Re: The conceit of the somewhat wise

rosborne979 wrote:

real life wrote:
Well, ros, you mentioned 'vetting' scientific information for example.

If you had your system set up, would you allow someone who is a PhD but disagrees with you on the evolution issue to 'vet' information in his area of expertise?

He obviously has the 'knowledge' you said was required.

Would your opinion keep your army of vetters exclusively pro-evolution?

In the case of science, there is already a peer review process in place which pretty much defines 'accepted' scientific facts.

All we would need is for someone to rate the accuracy of a piece of information as it relates to the scientific standard. The people rating the information wouldn't be commenting on their own opinion of its truth, only on how closely it matches whatever standard it was being measured against.

For example, a buddhist theology professor could still rate an article on Christianity based on how closely it matched certain standards, regardless of his personal opinion of christianity.

Note however that the buddhist theology professor must exhibit knowledge of christianity. Likewise, anyone evaluating the science standard must exhibit knowledge of science (preferrably by passing college level PHD requirements).

Also, any business which sells 'vetting services' such as we are describing would naturally want to keep its customers satisfied, so any sheenanigans which went on in the analysis would adversely affect the veracity of their own product and cause them to lose customers and go out of business (a self regulating system).

To be honest, I'm not sure of all the details and pitfalls in a system like this. I haven't put enough thought into it yet to build an actual functional system. That's partly because I don't see a way to implement it and make an online business out of it. But as I mentioned before, anyone who figures out how to do this will have a way to add value to raw information, that adding value means $$$$$. Eventually, I'm sure some form of this will evolve in online systems.

Well, I think people tend to patronize sites that they trust and respect and avoid those that they don't.

The same is true of newspapers. If a newspaper doesn't earn the trust of it's readers, readership will decrease. The slide of big city newspapers in the last few decades should teach a few lessons, but it probably is falling on deaf ears.

The same is true of radio talk shows, or TV or any other medium.

Take a look at cable news. The ratings indicate which ones people consider trustworthy, reliable and informative......and which ones they don't.

Most TV news and newspapers claim to do the type of vetting you describe now.

But people vote with their patronage, or lack thereof.

Simply claiming to have vetted their info and claiming to present an accurate slate of information is no guarantee that they have actually done so.

Aside from forcing people to read the newspaper you consider accurate and forcing them to watch the TV news you consider accurate, what do you propose to change about the way things are done?

This is relevant to your internet idea, because as I stated earlier there is really no difference.

Whether this process plays out online, or over TV , or radio, or in newsprint, the audience is still going to decide what they think is informative, accurate and worthwhile, aren't they?

In short, I think what you envision is already taking place.

It simply 'seems' different because in your town only a few people can afford to publish a newspaper or own a TV station, but thousands can publish their views online inexpensively or free. Therefore people are able to give their views wider circulation.

Short of stopping that, I think you're looking at the status quo for a long time to come. The internet will continue to be populated by all kinds of info......stuff you'll like and stuff you'll hate.

Get used to it, ros. Cool

0 Replies

When science meets media hype ...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know