10 Reader Responses

1. web guard Says:
   October 11th, 2005 at 6:58 am

   Yes, it is the time to assess the accountability of cyberspace

2. web guard Says:
   October 11th, 2005 at 7:20 am

   Tim,

   Please parden me make more comments frankly.

   This world do need genius website like yours to cook new ideas and to clear confusions. However, when things comes into accademic / news publications, and online goods and services utilization, the reference and the accountability of any website has to become professional.

   To achieve both of the objectives, some organisations have to do the job of certification of the website for accademic (citation) and commercial purposes, while leave other kind of website such as bloggs as free as possible.

3. Tim Boucher Says:
   October 11th, 2005 at 10:46 am

   Well that’s just it - I’m not concerned with offering an academic source. What I want is to write things in such a way that actually interests people and connects with them personally. I actually liked the comments of this person who warned others to beware of me, because it says that I’m succeeding in presenting a very non-academic site.

   The funny part of the whole thing is though, as far as that post they wrote about is that I was almost exclusively quoting a newspaper source, which was clearly linked. I may not be an academic source, but that surely is.

4. Emerson Says:
   October 11th, 2005 at 11:44 am

   “Some” academics will refuse use of personal websites as citations? I’m more worried about the fact that this implies some do allow it.

5. bill Says:
   October 11th, 2005 at 12:31 pm

   Well, having read a couple of academic sources in my life, I’ll say that you can’t know a source until you know it. Credentials mean very little to me. Trust requires time to establish. And I don’t assume anything from any source. It doesn’t matter how many letters they put after their name on a business card. Degrees are a lot easier to get than wisdom.

   Most academics learn from books written by people who learned from books written by people who… So they don’t KNOW better than someone who uses their knowledge in everyday work. In my experience, there are just as many writers on the ‘net with actual, real life knowledge of their subject as there are in academia. And these ‘net scholars spend lots of time studying their chosen subject, too.

   Why do people believe that writing must be true because it gets published? Why do they believe that So-and-so University Press publishes only truth? Are academics motivated to publish only out of a selfless desire to educate the great unwashed public?

6. media observer Says:
   October 12th, 2005 at 9:44 am

   I do see where your guys points are coming from. Accademic publication also have had flaws too. However, most of the publications are derived from the sequece of

   observations —> research results —- logical analysis —>conclusions

   and the publication has to be written in such a way that their observations and results can be repeated and reproduced by their counter part.

   This kind of approach at least liminates the logical error which I name it as a stem error. Of course, it is inevitable that those publications may contain branch errors which most likely are casued by a lack of enough awareness and realization. The level of awareness and realization are not something one can be easily upgraded. These are associated with one’s consciousness which one requires to be trained on.

   In terms of news circulation, I do worry that some person can publish unauthenticated news or rumours easily on the web to create an media which is able to favour their unspeakable purposes, as most audience don’t seriously use their logical mind to digest the news.

   Has anyone heard of a saying that if a false claim is repeated 1000 time, it becomes truth?

7. Tim Boucher Says:
   October 12th, 2005 at 10:26 am

   However, most of the publications are derived from the sequece of

   observations —> research results —- logical analysis —>conclusions

   I think you’re overlooking that this is pretty much how writing ordinarily goes. Academia has no exclusive hold on that methodology. In fact, I use it myself all the time.

   Further, I see academic writing many times as being constrained in that it’s attempting to limit itself to logic. Logic isn’t always the best tool for problem solving, especially in creative and unusual areas.

   I do worry that some person can publish unauthenticated news or rumours easily on the web to create an media which is able to favour their unspeakable purposes

   So? News companies do this all the time to a lot more damage than any of us small potatoes. If anything, the great variety of ideas offered by non-mainstream sources forces people into a position of comparison and logical analysis between all the diverse things they are hearing.

   Has anyone heard of a saying that if a false claim is repeated 1000 time, it becomes truth?

   Again, so what? How do you define false and how do you define truth? Truth doesn’t always come in the shape of facts. And sometimes the reason a lie or rumor gains so much ground is that it triggers a deeper level of truth. But again, logical thinking won’t allow you to see any of this, as it bridges into mythological levels and beyond.

8. channel null Says:
   October 12th, 2005 at 10:51 am

   I actually liked the comments of this person who warned others to beware of me, because it says that I’m succeeding in presenting a very non-academic site.

   Tim, that reveals more about your values than it does the site. You seem to think that something “academic” can’t engage people, and that something that engages someone can’t be “academic.” I tend to equate “academic” with “rigorous,” i.e., logical consistency, lack of fallacy, and substantiated claims. Now, academic, business, and industry journals tend not to be “popular” or “engaging,” but they are interesting because they contain so much information. Do you ever just browse wikipedia?

   Academia is a far different place from the way it’s depicted in popular sentiment and whining about “book smarts vs. common sense”; scholarly journals are the tip of an iceberg and really tangential to things. It’s far more industrial and “efficient” than it seems, but that’s a topic about which books have been written.

   I generally don’t consider internet articles “published.” While a great deal of my personal store of knowledge comes from the internet, I recongize that most people believe printed matter and television to ber more reliable–when using an online version of a printed article, simply reference the printed source and end the reference with “available at…”. On the other hand, there’s a great number of primary sources available on the cyberweb.

   Likewise, the more fringe the “publication,” the more likely it’s been forced on-line by practical concerns. E.g., the Journal of Western Martial Arts, or the Anomalist, but those would have low credibility even in print. And these tend to be the most interesting.

   Most academics learn from books written by people who learned from books written by people who… So they don’t KNOW better than someone who uses their knowledge in everyday work.

   If you actually went to school you’d realize no one read the books anyway. “Went in dumb, came out dumb, too.” Seriously, a historian can’t really do anything else than learn from printed and visual matter. They might be able to draw information about other things from it, though. To pretend like experience is the only valid form of learning is just moronic–and I rarely ever see or hear anyone justify learning from text. An atheletic coach has to be good in practice, but also has to understand what he knows through practice in order to coach at all. Some of the best atheletes make the worst coaches because of this split. The moment that one performs something properly and then learns to do it again comes much more rapidly when another’s analysis–be it shop talk, technical terminology, or an academic writing, points out the errors to avoid.

   James Curcio, author of Join My Cult!:

   Art and philosophy, without trade, commerce and application, are sterile and mastrubatory. Similarly, trade and commerce are brutish and myopic when not applied with the sensiblity that comes from in-depth philosophical and artistic debate.

   Theory and Practice. Practice and Theory.

   In terms of news circulation, I do worry that some person can publish unauthenticated news or rumours easily on the web to create an media which is able to favour their unspeakable purposes, as most audience don’t seriously use their logical mind to digest the news.

   Granted, it’s easy to get copy on the internet, but why worry about some lone nut hoaxer when Fox News and CNN offer a twenty-four hour drip of garbage. Certainly, there’s much to fear in the various politically-oriented websites and”blogospheres” and their ability to magnify lies, but I steer clear of those, and find that any professor who lets citations from Little Green Footballs or Daily Kos stand isn’t worth his Ph.D… Personally I think it’s evident of media virii–looks like one story when it’s really another–that prove false: The right clammoring about “Shooting at relief helicopters!” , or the left all worked up because Bill Bennett used reductio ad absurdum to illuminate the logic of Freakonomics’s claim about crime and abortion.

9. Tim Boucher Says:
   October 12th, 2005 at 12:37 pm

   Tim, that reveals more about your values than it does the site.

   I don’t know if that’s supposed to be a dig or what. I should hope that my writing and site reflects my values accurately… I recognize there’s a place for academia, and I also recognize more importantly that it’s not the place for me. I’m not trying to cast a blanket condemnation on all academics, cause that’s just stupid.

   Now, academic, business, and industry journals tend not to be “popular” or “engaging,” but they are interesting because they contain so much information. Do you ever just browse wikipedia?

   Yeah I browse Wikipedia daily, but I don’t consider it academic in the least. In fact, most academics I’ve heard of take great issue with Wikipedia’s Open Source approach, claiming that it creates lower quality material written by people who don’t really know.

   There’s actually an awesome article on Wired about Wikipedia, which I highly recommend reading.

   http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.03/wiki_pr.html

   It talks about other online encyclopedia projects run by academics which failed miserably. Plus a lot more interesting stuff as well.

10. middle man Says:
    October 12th, 2005 at 11:10 pm

    And sometimes the reason a lie or rumor gains so much ground is that it triggers a deeper level of truth. But again, logical thinking won’t allow you to see any of this, as it bridges into mythological levels and beyond.

    That’s why we need to take both of the problem solving approaches, logical thinking and multidimentional observing and practicing.

    An atheletic coach has to be good in practice, but also has to understand what he knows through practice in order to coach at all. Some of the best atheletes make the worst coaches because of this split.

    That exactly reminds me how similar consciousness enginneering and spirituality developing are to a sport coaching