Image via WikipediaSo much discussion in the blogosphere these days about the impact of the “google age” on everything from our intelligence to the scientific method. I’ve been trying to think through what all of these assertions really mean and where they come from and how they might impact science. In a continuation of his already infamous Atlantic essay, Nick Carr cites a post on the Britannica blog which asserts that online research is focussed on quick wins and less on depth.
It is undeniable that we are blessed (or is that suffering) with hitherto unseen amounts of data. It is also true that our currently search and information retrieval technologies, at least those commonly available only scratch the surface of how we can leverage all this information. But the current trend among some pundits to think that this is somehow making us more shallow is disconcerting. In Anderson’s case, the idea that we can somehow discover everything through statistical correlations in a way is also a similar assertion, that through brute force statistics and correlation we will be able to make scientific discoveries, not though insight and intelligence
The authors fail to realize that for the majority of us, the non-specialists, the web is a treasure trove of knowledge that most either did not have access to before, or had to do too much work to get. Any knowledge that they have is better than what they would have had in the absence of all this information at our fingertips. Could the tools they have to become more efficient and deal with this information glut be improved? Of course, and so will our habits evolve as we learn to deal with information overload. To some extent any perceived shallowness is a function of our culture, which seems to eschew knowledge, but perhaps that opinion is a function of my own thinking and might also fall into the same category of thinking that Carr and Anderson have displayed.
So what about those who make information their life. Creating it, parsing it, trying to glean additional information to it. As one of those, and having met and known many others, all I can say is that to say that the internet and all this information has made us shallower in our searching is completely off the mark. It’s easy enough to go from A –> B, but the fun part is going from A –> B –> C –> D or even A –> B –> C –> H, which is the fun part of online discovery. I would argue that in looking for citations we can now find citations of increased relevance, rather than rehashing ones that others do, and that’s only part of the story. We have the ability to discovery links through our online networks. It’s up to the user tho bring some diversity into those networks, and I would wager most of us do that.
So in a nutshell, alarmist articles like Carr’s, or ones that overemphasize data availability like Anderson’s need to be put into context. We are at the infancy of the data glut, about online information availability changing fundamental information discovery behaviour. In the general sense, we need to take advantage of what’s available to us to foster interest and curiosity in kids and casual observers and allowing those who are really interested in drilling down and information discovery to do so. Many of us have already figured out how to be more effective in this era than we ever were before.
Addendum: How much do you trust an article on the Britannica blog? IMO, there is a serious credibility issue there
The data conundrum?
It is undeniable that we are blessed (or is that suffering) with hitherto unseen amounts of data. It is also true that our currently search and information retrieval technologies, at least those commonly available only scratch the surface of how we can leverage all this information. But the current trend among some pundits to think that this is somehow making us more shallow is disconcerting. In Anderson’s case, the idea that we can somehow discover everything through statistical correlations in a way is also a similar assertion, that through brute force statistics and correlation we will be able to make scientific discoveries, not though insight and intelligence
The authors fail to realize that for the majority of us, the non-specialists, the web is a treasure trove of knowledge that most either did not have access to before, or had to do too much work to get. Any knowledge that they have is better than what they would have had in the absence of all this information at our fingertips. Could the tools they have to become more efficient and deal with this information glut be improved? Of course, and so will our habits evolve as we learn to deal with information overload. To some extent any perceived shallowness is a function of our culture, which seems to eschew knowledge, but perhaps that opinion is a function of my own thinking and might also fall into the same category of thinking that Carr and Anderson have displayed.
So what about those who make information their life. Creating it, parsing it, trying to glean additional information to it. As one of those, and having met and known many others, all I can say is that to say that the internet and all this information has made us shallower in our searching is completely off the mark. It’s easy enough to go from A –> B, but the fun part is going from A –> B –> C –> D or even A –> B –> C –> H, which is the fun part of online discovery. I would argue that in looking for citations we can now find citations of increased relevance, rather than rehashing ones that others do, and that’s only part of the story. We have the ability to discovery links through our online networks. It’s up to the user tho bring some diversity into those networks, and I would wager most of us do that.
So in a nutshell, alarmist articles like Carr’s, or ones that overemphasize data availability like Anderson’s need to be put into context. We are at the infancy of the data glut, about online information availability changing fundamental information discovery behaviour. In the general sense, we need to take advantage of what’s available to us to foster interest and curiosity in kids and casual observers and allowing those who are really interested in drilling down and information discovery to do so. Many of us have already figured out how to be more effective in this era than we ever were before.
Addendum: How much do you trust an article on the Britannica blog? IMO, there is a serious credibility issue there
Related articles by Zemanta