Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room

Britannica - would you buy it on (say) Kindle or Nook?

<< < (5/8) > >>

40hz:
I feel at the same time highly frustrated by the relatively tedious linearity of the whole process I am engaged in, when compared to the exploding connectivity and richness of of that "discovery" experience.
-IainB (March 15, 2012, 03:54 PM)
--- End quote ---

That, I think, cuts right to the heart of it for some of us. Online and electronic lookups tend to be linear activities .

@IainB - Linear! (That's twice this month you've hit on the exact word I was looking for! You're hired.) ;D

superboyac:
But studies have shown that the quality (i.e., error rate) of Britannica is only somewhat better than Wikipedia -- they're both of similar magnitude.

I fear that the stigma really stems from academia (right down to elementary school) believing in a top-down model, a priesthood of experts who dictate to the masses, whereas WP stands for power from the ground up.
-CWuestefeld (March 15, 2012, 04:47 PM)
--- End quote ---

While I can agree in spirit with that argument (academics having much to answer for) I still worry about the current trend towards confusing consensus with fact and proof. I've seen too much scientifically determined fact dismissed with comments like: "Well, that's just your opinion." or "I'm sorry, but we don't see it that way." to be too anxious to toss out our entire qualified peer review system in favor of mob rule when it comes to creating reference materials.

And while crowd sourcing may be all the rage, I can't help but wonder why the opinions of experts or scientific research is now often considered less reliable and acceptable than the off-the-cuff collective opinion of 400 laymen, a talk show host, or a badly designed and conducted poll.

Small surprise we now see things like over 500 locales authoritatively listed as the number one place (singular) for starting a business in America - if the magazines can be trusted. Or how worries about carbon and global warming are dismissed by our policy makers because their is no 'scientific' consensus to support the concern.

Not to say that everyone isn't entitled to their opinion.

It's just that I think its both naive and potentially dangerous to think that everyone's opinion should automatically be given equal weight.

Call me crazy, but from what I've seen, something like 80% of what's out there talking (i.e. the "All I know is______" crowd) isn't entitled to an opinion because they simply don't know enough (and usually can't be bothered to learn enough) to be qualified to even have an opinion worth listening to.
 8)
-40hz (March 15, 2012, 05:23 PM)
--- End quote ---
There's ^^^ which you describe above.  And on the other side of the spectrum, there are those very intelligent, very learned people who either can't or won't explain whatever it is they know so well.  For example, there are those that don't realize that most people haven't spent a lifetime poring over the specific thing that they are experts at, and they are unable to communicate their knowledge in a beneficial way.  Then, there are those who simply won't be clear because they don't want to "give something away" (it's true...I've seen it).

Another thing I've noticed in the very "smart" crowds, especially the ones that really need the PhD label before they listen to anything...if they think you are not qualified, all they do (because they are very smart and clever) is take your opinion, and disagree with it.  It's a form of bullying in my opinion.  So if I ask "So do you think the Great Pyramids were built by aliens?" they'll answer "Well, perhaps they were built by slave labor."  And they go on to explain how that's possible.  But had I asked "So do you think the Great Pyramids were built by slave labor?"  well now they'll answer 'Well, perhaps they weren't slaves but respected artisans and engineers."  And this is fine, but I've seen too much that they are doing this general tactic to disagree.  They just will not agree.  Even if they agree, they have to sort of stick in that last word...the but-how-about-this comment.  And the whole thing really boils down to that all they are trying to do is appear smart.  it's not an honest and open exploration of a topic.  I have really been turned off by this attitude in the universities I have attended.  And even more so in the workplace.

And then there's this legalistic they do about changing your mind.  I change my mind constantly, especially as i dig deeper into a subject.  And a lot of these guys I describe above like to bully you about changing your mind, because anyone who changes their mind is immediately not credible any more.

I know I'm bitter and defensive about this.  But it is something I have struggled with much of my life and I'm only understanding it on a personal level now.  A lot of my family came from areas where you just couldn't ask questions freely.  And that's never really gone away for a lot of them.  And I had to sort of balance all that out with the fact that I'm also a born and raised American.  It's that 1st generation thing.  It's crazy.  In the end, I just don't want people making me feel guilty or bad about exploring a subject, and I think that's something this country is (should be?  was?) great at.

40hz:
I have really been turned off by this attitude in the universities I have attended.
-superboyac (March 15, 2012, 06:26 PM)
--- End quote ---

I guess I've been pretty lucky on that score, although it may have been a function of where I went and when I went there. It's a very different world on university campuses than what I knew when I attended. So maybe a part of my attitude is out of date.

And even more so in the workplace.
-superboyac (March 15, 2012, 06:26 PM)
--- End quote ---

I'll +1 that part, no argument. (That's why I started my own business - and probably why you did too?)

In the end, I just don't want people making me feel guilty or bad about exploring a subject, and I think that's something this country is (should be?  was?) great at.
-superboyac (March 15, 2012, 06:26 PM)
--- End quote ---

I think you're correct on all three points. It is. Should be. And rapidly is becoming was. That's why we're all constantly fighting the ignorance around us. Don't give up. :Thmbsup:

CWuestefeld:
While I can agree in spirit with that argument (academics having much to answer for) I still worry about the current trend towards confusing consensus with fact and proof. I've seen too much scientifically determined fact dismissed with comments like: "Well, that's just your opinion." or "I'm sorry, but we don't see it that way." to be too anxious to toss out our entire qualified peer review system in favor of mob rule when it comes to creating reference materials.

And while crowd sourcing may be all the rage, I can't help but wonder why the opinions of experts or scientific research is now often considered less reliable and acceptable than the off-the-cuff collective opinion of 400 laymen, a talk show host, or a badly designed and conducted poll.
-40hz (March 15, 2012, 05:23 PM)
--- End quote ---

Understand that for encyclopedias as a class -- Britannica, Wikipedia, and any others -- their charter is explicitly not to provide 1st tier (researcher published) or even 2nd (literature aggregating the original research). Their job is to convey the consensus, and that's it. Both Britannica and Wikipedia do a pretty good job at this (although I know a number of subject matter experts who are frustrated that WP reverts their edits for facts they know, but cannot demonstrate through 2nd tier sources, and thus deride WP). So I think that this is as it should be when we're discussing encyclopedias.

That said, I agree with you about the problems people have grappling with concrete facts, the scientific method, and policy. Observed, measured facts (the sun rose this morning at X o'clock) aren't subject to debate at all, other than calibration of the measurement devices. But few people have the sophistication to understand how those measurements work (e.g., recent scientific controversy over measurements of the speed of light at CERN), and so I think that many folks believe that the facts themselves are being debated (and a retarded press doesn't help the matter).

But let me take this a step farther in two different ways.

First, I see a disconcerting overuse of the phrase "common sense", particularly when discussing governmental policy. It seems to be used to excuse a lack of rational argument, saying that no justification is necessary. But reading between the lines, it suggests that either the speaker has no justification, or that the speaker feels that the listener isn't worth giving a justification to. And this is very dangerous because history shows in controversies beyond number (heliocentric universe; biogenesis; etc.) that the obvious answer is frequently very wrong.

Second, even when one has the facts correct, it does not always directly lead to policy decisions. One cannot decide policy without mixing facts with values, and everybody has their own set of these. Just because the earth's climate is changing, it doesn't automatically follow that something must be done to stop it (I don't mean to debate this argument, simply to recognize that it is debatable. Just because there are large numbers of undocumented aliens in America, it doesn't automatically follow that they are a detriment to our society.

We may be able to arrive at consensus about the facts of a given issue -- or at least most of us should be able to, since most of us are unable to support an argument against a real expert, and thus have little choice but to accept the consensus of the scientific community. But the only way we can translate those facts into a policy is by taking a single set of values to act upon. Sometimes we can all agree on a value, as when the country was threatened in WWII -- we all found ourselves on the same page. More often, we value different things to different degrees, and so are unable to agree on policy. And so a policy is dictated that interferes with someone's values. This breaks the enlightenment liberal philosophy on which the USA was founded, and is what Hayek wrote about in the classic The Road to Serfdom.

IainB:
That, I think, cuts right to the heart of it for some of us. Online and electronic lookups tend to be linear activities .
-40hz (March 15, 2012, 06:21 PM)
--- End quote ---
Well, I suspect that would be generally true for all (not just some) of us - in terms of human experience.
If you analyse anything that you do as a process, then you can quickly establish/see whether it is linear. A lot of what we do can thus be seen to be linear process flow, and even that explosive/connected "discovery" process would be linear if it was broken down (decomposed) into small enough discrete steps. The thing about using the hardcopy reference texts (hardcopy media) though is that it seems non-linear, because it is "fast" (speedy).
It is fast because you can use your trained reading faculties and that media, jumping your attention across a wider span and then focussing in as necessary, in such a way as to minimise the duration of the discrete sequential linear process steps and of any delay intervals between them. You thus accelerate the process.
"Need more input! Need more input!" (from the movie "Number 5")
--- End quote ---
Doing this another way doesn't seem to be possible at present, using the available technology. In fact the Britannica-on-a-tablet technology suggested (above) could arguably slow the process down.

I think that if you tried it out in practice it would indeed slow the process down. This would be unusual in my experience, because time and again it can be demonstrated that if you automate a process you will be able to speed it up - but it is generally implicit in that that you are removing the human element (and human error). But this discussion is related to the ergonomics and the human experience of "discovery" learning, so it is impossible to isolate the human element without defeating the objective (which would be something like [To achieve effective "discovery" learning]).

So we're probably not able to go about automating it in "the right way" using current technology - or at least in the way I am supposing we could use Britannica-on-a-tablet - i.e., it is, or could potentially be going backwards.

I have realised during this discussion that, whereas I had initially envisaged using just a laptop and a tablet as described, you could equally use a laptop and two or more separate displays (monitor screens). It's the number of displays that seems a relevant constraint - to mimic the books "spread out on the floor" around you. I have googled displays and decided that what could work might be larger touch-sensitive displays that you could position in portrait or landscape format, and adjust from vertical or to lie down flat or at a (say) a 35° angle facing you. Sort of "big" tablets positioned/laid out on the floor or desk around you.

And it wouldn't matter where the knowledge base was that you were accessing, as long as all devices could access it with equal facility. So, using Britannica-on-a-tablet would not seem to be the solution, but it would seem to be a pretty good starting-point to experiment and "suck it and see" and to better understand the limitations of the technology. Rather like a prototype of the multi-display scenario that I have just outlined.

I think I might have asked the "wrong" question in the opening post. Substitute "knowledge base" for "Britannica" or "Wikipedia", so as to remove the attractively diverting debate about which is "better", etc. But you would have to be able to trust the authors of that knowledge base not to be loading it with bias, political correctness, religio-political ideology, propaganda, innacuracies or downright falsehoods - or to be over-pricing it. Those of us who have been awake for the last 20 or so years are more likely to be skeptical as to how that might be able to work out.

In any event, I would still love to have my knowledge base - including my entire document reference library - either held on a tablet or readily accessible via a tablet. Portable, discrete, read-anywhere access to knowledge and references.
I reckon Britannica-on-a-tablet could be a good starting point and I'd be a serious potential customer for one of those, subject to price/affordability.

This would go a little way towards a worthwhile objective (imho) - the expansion of free and easy access to the sum of all human knowledge, necessary for our further development and cultural evolution. Only the other day I was delighted to read that Oxford U was putting some of Newton's papers and some Islamic manuscripts online. How good to see these things finally being made accessible to the general public, brought out into the daylight instead of being held in secure and dark cells behind some artificial and seemingly impenetrable barrier - library walls or other academic walls/paywalls (ref. Elsevier).

So, my thanks go to Amazon or Apple et al. Whatever fault we might be able to find in them (probably quite a lot), this discussion might not have even been able to take place on this subject if it hadn't been for the de facto commoditisation of the concept of reading tablets, by that group.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page