More handpicked essays just for you.
Relevance of information overload
Advantages and disadvantages of INFORMATION OVERLOAD
Advantages and disadvantages of INFORMATION OVERLOAD
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Information is everywhere now and days. Everything is on google. When we are in pain or need help building something, we can just look it up and everything will be at the palm of our hands. The only time we need experts is when we are in real need of help. This can be a good thing because it just goes to show you how easy it is to learn and gain more knowledge, but it’s also terrible because how much knowledge is necessary until we can call ourselves an “expert.” I think part of the problem lies between those who are open minded and those who are single minded. Some people after doing some research here and there, assume they know it all or there isn’t much else to it and this is the problem why we are losing faith in our “experts.” It is important to get a fuller picture of loss in need of our experts because of how easily information can be accessed. IN order to get a …show more content…
better picture of how we are losing trust in our skills in the US, I will examine the following 3 articles, “How American Lose Faith in Expertise,” by Tom Nichols, “When the Truth becomes a commodity,” by Daniel Rodgers and “Why Republicans Dislike Colleges,” by David Graham.
This examination will give us better insight into ideas of why everyone thinks they’re becoming experts at everything and why there is so such thing as the “truth" anymore.
"The 1st article is "" How American Lose Faith in Expertise,” by Tom Nichols In this article, author 1 examines who are really experts? And how do we identify one as an expert. One of the interesting arguments they make is that now and days everyone thinks they are an expert when they are really not and uses the experts errors to ignore the advice that they don’t like. This supported by an example he uses when he mentions the 8% of parents who refuse to give their children vaccine because they believe it could harm
their children. This isn’t to say they are right or wrong for thinking that way, it is due to the fact that “These parents were not medical professionals, but they had just enough education to believe that they could challenge established medical science, and they felt empowered to do so—even at the cost of the health of their own and everybody else’s children. “ This shows how little knowledge of a subject can make individuals change any type of “expertise.” This example seem to support the idea that less respect to shown to the experts due to the fact that we have so many ways to access information that even if we do not know everything about a subject, if we know something about it we feel like we have the authority or voice to go against experts. The author suggests is caused by a physiological effect called “Dunning-Kerger effect.” The effect is that the less skilled or competent you are, the more confident you are that you’re actually very good at what you do. I agree with the analysis, because as human beings we all have different views of things and when an expert’s research or opinion goes against our beliefs we will probably find a way to challenge that. Depending on the person, if the person is more single-minded they will of course have harder time accepting it and look harder to find ways to rebuttal it. A second interesting argument in the Author 1 article is conspiracy theories can impact people and how it is other way to question the expertise, which also addresses the concept of how we are looking faith in the skills. As author mentions about how Conspiracy theories are attractive to people who have a hard time making sense of a complicated world and little patience for boring, detailed explanations. He is saying that this is a way for people to make inferences and give things meaning without actually having accurate and precise explanations to their theories. So basically people can make these theories up without having actual fact and evidence to back it up. This seems to support the idea that we don’t need to be experts, as long as we keep questioning and creating different perspectives we can seem like we know it all. This is which the author suggests is caused by conspiracy theories to be unfalsifiable so it makes it easier for the theorist because they cant be proven to be right or wrong. I agree with this analysis, because creating assumptions usually causes debates and I think that’s what the theorist want people to do. Instead of agreeing to the “truth” they want to keep asking, so it’ll make the world make more sense because to some people there is never just one truth. The 2nd article is "When the Truth becomes a Commodity" by Daniel Rodgers. In this article, author 2 examines the art of what is the true and how it can be hidden. This is similar to Author 1 in that we believe our views gives us to right to counter argue others, but takes the focuses on the complexity of the true. One of the interesting arguments they make is as long as the “truth” supports what we want to hear then that is the truth to us even if it is not the real truth. The author seems to support the idea that as long as truth is imagined as a desire satisfied in a politically and commercially saturated market it will be seen as the true. I agree with this analysis because the “truth” has always been something that can be hard to come to an agreement with. Even with all these scientific researches and evidence, their will always be those who are skeptical about what the truth is or what if there is more to it. Sometimes we believe that’s true by how it may affect to our emotions or thoughts. If the truth supports what you believe, then you are less likely to be skeptical about it. Both of these articles confirm the idea that what we believe is true and what is the actual truth can be significantly different at times and sometimes we ignore the truth because it can be complicating or our egos may get in the way. Each article took a slightly different approach but both seem to agree that the truth can be how to find or take in if it goes against our perspectives. Like Rodgers said we tend to take sides that supports our views, but the ones that are able to learn and change their views for the actual truth or the ones that’ll become more intellectual. While Tom Nichols looks more on why we reject experts views, Daniel Rodgers helps support Nichols by giving reasons on why “truth” can be seen as an item. I would argue that both articles show that anyone can be an “expert” at anything and it can be hard to find the “truth” of any topics due to the access of different views of information and researches on the web. "The 3rd article “The Grim Conclusion of the largest study ever of fake news"..." by Robinson Meyer. ... In this article, author 3 examines the definition of what few news is. This article is also similar to the first two because they all show the idea of what information is real and who’s perspectives are believable. One of the interesting arguments they make is users on social media who provides accurate information has more followers, but false fabricate news seems to attract more attention. The author mentions how people can get hooked by the falsehood in the heat of the moment. This happens because public minded users usually have an high interest of winning an argument, so if that means false evidence are used from them to win an argument, that is what it’ll take. The author suggests is caused by a trend that “seems to systematically amplify falsehood at the expense of the truth, and no one—neither experts nor politicians nor tech companies—knows how to reverse that trend.” This means the truth is being sacrifice for the rapidly spread false information. I agree with this analysis, because it is usually the false information that are more intriguing and sometimes we listen more to fabricated things because it seems attractive.
I firmly agree with many points that Kinsley brings up in this article. Many times, people with speak strongly on topics in which they are not properly informed. Other people tend to follow these misinformed ideas and then the actually facts are harder to be discovered. This seems to be a huge issue in today’s society. There are so many controversial topics dealing with politics, science, religion and more. It is extremely important that we are properly educated on these topics so we can have a solid base to build our opinions
The article, “Motivated Rejection of Science” stood out to me because the vast amount of scientific research to back up findings and the vast majority of the population that rejects it. Lewandowsky and Oberauer discuss the prevalence of false beliefs in the general population. They bring up the popular conspiracy theories that have either false or no scientific research, plaguing the minds of many. When the majority of the general population believe in a certain theory – like the vaccines that are ‘linked’ to measles, Autism, mumps, and rubella – the effects can be detrimental. The vaccine craze was felt worldwide and is the best example of misinformation.
In “The Death of Expertise” the author, Tom Nichols, expresses his concerns and fears about the ignorant public and their views on experts and the things they are experts in. Nichols states that, in today’s society, a backlash of hate and anger will ensue when the public is faced with an “assertion of expertise.” Nichols argues that people resent the thought of being wrong or different opinions “altering their own thoughts and changing the way they live.” Nichols states that even though everyone has equal rights, not everyone is an equal expert, which the public does not receive well. Nichols voices his worries about the “death of the expert” the bridge that separated the experts from the general public has collapsed and with it the idea that the experts know what they are talking about. The idea Nichols is trying to convey is not the “death of actual expertise,” instead what he fears had died is “any acknowledgement of expertise as anything that should alter our thoughts or change the way we live.” (Nichols, 1) There will always be experts in various fields; however people have stopped listening to them in order to protect their own opinions.
...second using the search engine, people lose their motivation to read and the attention to think about the answer. (Crovitz 353) In Plato’s Phaedrus, Greek philosopher Socrates claims that people who get information without proper instruction as ignorant since they only conceit of the answer instead of the wisdom to find out and understand the answer. (Carr 341) With such access to information, we do spread information and expand human knowledge in a rapid rate. However, we lose our creativity, intelligence and the spirit of inquiry.
We as humans tend to have an unquenchable thirst for knowledge. We look for knowledge about everybody and everything that surrounds us in our day-to-day life. Sadly though, we must accept that in the grand scheme of life we (as a society) tend to put pleasure above our quest for knowledge. The pursuit of knowledge tends to take time and energy, two things we call invaluable, and it also shows us things that might depress us. Contrastingly, ignorance takes no time and energy.
Albert Einstein once said “A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. So is a lot.” Knowledge can be good because it makes one successful. Then, it can also be very bad such as a criminal being too smart for the police, he or she can keep committing crime. Too much knowledge is dangerous because it may harm many, which means that many die or get scarred for life because of one simple guy with an excess of knowledge.
I agree with Schlesinger when she suggests that “we have come to believe that wisdom is accessible somewhere on a web page, if only we find the right one” (58). I feel that we have been taught that the answer to everything is on the internet and all we have to do is type a question into a search box press enter and the answer shall magically appear. However there isn’t always
Collins, H. M. (1983). The sociology of scientific knowledge: Studies of contemporary science. Annual Review of Sociology, 265-285.
In “The Problem with New Data”, an article, Jon Carroll discusses the threat that restricts our beliefs by the information around us. First, he points out that there is a gap that can be hardly recognized between conventional perspectives and realistic elements in our society by using Dr. Hansen’s story. Second, the author states that the news might be controlled and it affects our life without letting us know. Lastly, he suggests that we should rethink about the facts that we believe to be true and should not be dependence on them. In conclusion, Carroll argues that we need to understand that our brain can be controlled by external factors; however, we should be able to avoid it.
“While we’re all born with the ability to ask questions, our ability to do so is unequally distributed.”(91) A direct quote from Ian Leslie book Curious, Leslie focuses on the ability we have to ask questions and the power that asking question hold in our development of knowledge. As one matures into an adult, the rate of which we ask questions tends to dissipate compared to that of a child.
The expert’s incentive is more of a reward for themselves. There are many cases that stick out to me in today’s world, and one of them is how researchers are being pried for information they don’t have. When this occurs, there are times that they give out mendacious information that could harm society (Chapter three). Researchers are continuously rewarded for their data, but when they don’t have the data that is being seeked, they provide false information in best hope for self-interest. Thus, could be harmful to society if the data is medical, agricultural, or of any other field. One particular case that was very prominent to me was how parenting experts exaggerate scenarios, then require parents to meet certain criteria, such as how “breastfeeding is the only way your child is assured to be smart and healthy (chapter five page 147). Lastly in the first chapter “What do schoolteachers and sumo wrestlers have in common,” (page 15) the school teacher’s incentives were to make themselves look like better teachers. The teachers transmuted their student’s
People see experts as people, more now than ever before. Because of this, it is known that they could make a mistake. Maybe this is why people don’t respect authoritative figures anymore. They think that because they are capable of making a mistake, they might do it all the time. College students particularly believe that experts can be wrong about things, but it is often based on the beliefs of a particular student. Students might believe that it is in their job description to respect the students, which it is often not (“SPGP Review”). They think they deserve that respect, and if they don’t get it they will force it out of somebody. A good example of this was written in an article called “Our Graduates are Rubes”. It discussed how in a certain college, there was a floor master or person who watches over a floor in a college dormitory. Some students were upset about racist, offensive costumes being worn in their dorm for Halloween. Naturally, they went to the floor master because they felt unsafe. The floor master refused to do anything, instead, he resigned, and spoke about how college is supposed to be an intellectual society, not somewhere where you should feel safe (Nichols). The main problem with this is that college students nowadays believe they have the right to feel safe, which is absolutely true. Older people often don’t understand that we will fight for our right to feel safe
Knowledge goes beyond the regurgitation or memorization of facts, and knowledge claims can either be justified with experience or simply an understanding. Different areas of knowledge have different methods to either build or falsify knowledge, as the method of justification differs between these areas of knowledge. There are perspectives to support building facts around knowledge, while disagreeing with the neglect of facts that were previously held as knowledge. These perspectives collectively create opposition for the areas of knowledge, science and history. Both science and history are subject to changes in knowledge for facts may sometimes be discarded, built upon, or distorted to prove an opinion or theory. This does not necessarily mean that knowledge is always discarded and forgotten, but simply acknowledges that these areas of knowledge continue to build on the previous facts or opinions. Since both areas approach knowledge though different perspectives, the question that emerges is to what extent is society justified in establishing or discarding that which is defined as common knowledge.
If we focus on the process of becoming an expert rather than the claim that only a few become expert, we may come to a position I first heard from Micki Chi. Children are universal novices. They have not developed very many of the component skills needed for any domain. Decalage is the order of the day; many of the skills needed are relatively domain specific. The topics in t...
...our questions, we need to work hard to acquire training in learning scientific materials either through a teacher or with our own strive in gaining knowledge. Our modern world is based on science’s role and different aspects of scientific effort to clarify and to shed light to our problematic conditions. More over, as human being, we all want to have a pleasurable enlighten for our doubts or curiosity, nevertheless, we need to realize that, there is limitation to all of these discoveries. We need to consider that scientist always do their best for welfare of human conditions. yet we can’t hid the fact that the world of science is still uncertain an incomplete.