just google it you fool

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
post is part of a conversation, not an op-ed piece.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was just extremely weak. You really want to have your cake and eat it too, here. For shame!

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Although I think it's proper to elaborate upon an unsupported point if someone shows an interest, or questions it. This is a topic for a separate interesting (or maybe very boring, depending on your mood [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] ) thread.

[disjunction]

[ QUOTE ]



What stat heads have done is broaden / deepen the level of analysis for the sport they cover. So the "conventional wisdom" is now probably, on average, "wiser".

At any rate, today compared to years past, even the "followers" are likely better informed overall, just cause the information is more free-flowing, and again, today's conventional wisdom is a better informed way of approaching sports.

-Al

[/ QUOTE ]

This is exactly it.

[Ray Zee]

i think we are getting on to it now. its really great that this info is easily available. it does make life easier but at the same time it makes it too easy to just look it up. and when we look up things that we should be thinking about first then we lost something.
with the calculator analogy. they are the best invention ever, almost. but what it has done is turn people into not being able to do simple math. sure they learn it in school but forget it as they go forever without using it. the average cashier cant figure out what change to give you anymore unless its posted on the cash register.
remember when our professors would ask a question and make us squirm while trying to come up with the solution. what happens when we can google it and not figure out the answer.
i use google all the time. i used it to find out how to sharpen my drill bits. i wasnt very good. so i did and know am much better. but without it i would have found someone to show me the way and learned first hand and would be even better. so i will not be a good at that little task as i could be.

[kipin]

Mr Zee,

I don't understand how you could possibly think that open and easy accessibility of information is ever a bad thing.

Information being easily found and talked about is the key to future discoveries and breakthroughs.

Information is power, the trick is processing it all and using it for something useful.

Stupid people will be stupid people, just because someone can now google the derivative of 2x^2 does not mean there will be a decrease in free thinking (or the development of new ideas) by the people with a thirst for knowledge.

It is my opinion that people with a thirst for knowledge will continue to come up with (Just as they did before the advent of the internet, the printing press, and other such ground breaking technologies.) brilliant solutions to today's problems. Ease and accessibility of information will just help the process, never hinder it.

Or perhaps I'm the one who is wrong and this new technology will finally be the downfall of free thought.

[ThaSaltCracka]

trial and error. The simplest form of learning. Of course those trials can be at many different levels of difficulty, but the spirit is the same.

[51cards]

I've thought about the easy access we have to vast information quite a bit lately.

Think about this. What is the difference between knowing something and being able to know it in 10 seconds? I can't find a meaningful distinction.

Right now there a few practical differences like the mobility of my laptop and internet connections. But in just a few more years I think wireless will be ubiquitous and my computer will be even more mobile. The differences will shrink away I think.

So in effect Ray is arguing against knowledge. I cast another vote for google. Yay google.

Are other search engines anywhere near google? The only ones I see are crappy advertisement pages trying to look like a search page.

[inside??]

[ QUOTE ]
it really pesses me off how it seems every time a tough question pops up people go right to google and look up an answer. what has happened to the day when we took some time and thought about it and reasoned things out. the reason things out part is gone. so i guess the future holds little in the way of the independent thinker who extracts an answer from his deductions.

nothing wrong with looking up who won the pga in 1980 or something, but to immediately go there for most any small problem cant be good.

plus just because it is on the web does not mean it is accurate or explained to the fullest, or the small points mentioned. and if its not there people think it hasnt happened.

just venting

[/ QUOTE ]

No offense but are the same guy who won't stop and ask for directions?

[Dave I]

[ QUOTE ]

i use google all the time. i used it to find out how to sharpen my drill bits. i wasnt very good. so i did and know am much better. but without it i would have found someone to show me the way and learned first hand and would be even better. so i will not be a good at that little task as i could be.

[/ QUOTE ]

This makes absolutely no sense. Are you saying the Google method you found can't be better than the method you would have learned on your own or that someone would have taught you?

What about the time you saved? This is exactly the type of thing "Google" is perfect for. Instead of spending hours teaching yourself (and ruining bits) or waiting days/weeks for someone to have time to show you how to sharpen drill bits, you learn that part quickly and get on with using those sharpened drill bits.

I don't think anyone is suggesting asking Google the meaning of life.

[Blarg]

I think we're skating past the difference between skimming and having deep knowledge. Reading someone's ideas about a subject is not the same as reading the direct, original materials yourself, and has a big chance of being overly influenced by the personality of the guy doing the summing up and interpreting. Imagine disciples of warring ideas in the sciences or humanities writing articles on their subjects. Those articles are likely to heavily favor one viewpoint and denigrate, to perhaps an absurd extent, differing viewpoints. This is rock-bottom standard.

Reading original texts oneself instead of skimming someone else's summation will let you find out things that others will not reveal, either through ignorance or because of bias. Spending the time it takes to read the whole of a work rather than some brief blurbs about it will undoubtedly help to put those brief blurbs in context, too, and in a way that only you can taint for yourself. So much better than having it tainted for you!

Sure, reading "indirectly" may get you some knowledge, and it may even get you some interesting takes on the subject. But who's to know? It's always a gamble you're not getting someone's bias in there somewhere, if not outright ludicrous distortion or sly omission. And pretty much everyone has SOME sort of bias.

Reading in depth, and in the original texts or as close to them as one can get, does an awful lot to help one really know something. Without it, one is very subject to being faked out and thinking he knows a subject he may in fact be completely clueless about.

Imagine Hitler explaining Picasso, or creationists explaining evolution, or I guess anyone at all explaining abortion. Certain things, you're just better off figuring out for yourself.

[El Diablo]

Ray,

Come check out the Special Sklansky Forum.