atw: Re: Wikipedia: A Summing Up
- From: "Geoffrey Marnell" <geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 13:56:36 +1000
But there is, Michael, a clear distinction between purported knowledge and
knowledge. Folks in the past didn't KNOW that the earth was the centre of
attention. They simply had a false belief.
I'm the first to admit that knowledge is extraordinarily difficult to derive
(unless it is a priori knowledge) which is precisely why I challenged the
claim that Wikipedia is a source of knowledge. I didn't want to muddy the
debate further with inductive scepticism a la David Hume (which, of course,
would have shot the whole debate dead at step 1). The point is that even if
we accept the widely-held view that a claim deserves to be called knowledge
if it is repeatedly corroborated and not once falsified, then Wikipedia is
not a source of knowledge. It may be the inspiration that led to knowledge
(as per Tony's latest example).
If you want to side with Hume, then there's not much we really know: cogito
ergo sum, there is an infinite number of prime numbers, and a score or so of
other rather limited a priori truths. I prefer to view knowledge as an
asymptote that we can, by repeated verification in the absence of
falsifications, approach even if we never meet it. This definition, at
least, gives Wikipedia some hope of being a potential contributor to the
advancement of knowledge. The Humean approach gives it none.
Cheers
Geoffrey Marnell
Principal Consultant
Abelard Consulting Pty Ltd
T: +61 3 9596 3456
F: +61 3 9596 3625
M: 0419 574 668
W: <http://www.abelard.com.au> www.abelard.com.au
Skype: geoffrey.marnell
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael Lewis
Sent: Thursday, September 01, 2011 12:56 PM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Wikipedia: A Summing Up
Yes. Except . . .
I hate to disagree with Geoffrey on a quite fundamental point, especially
since I am in complete agreement with his overall position about Wikipedia -
or, at least, student use thereof for academic purposes.
I keep telling my students that knowledge is essentially tentative. Outside
pure mathematics, it's extraordinarily difficult to actually prove anything,
and the scientific method is not about proving truth but about attempting to
prove falsity.
After all, for millenia humans knew that the earth is the centre of the
universe, and many would say that we now know (thanks to Einstein) how
gravity really works. Copernicus put the sun at the centre of the universe -
still a falsity; Newton gave us methods for calculating the effects of
gravity - now seen to be merely an approximation. What next? Is someone at
this very moment working on a project to debunk Relativity? Probably not,
but we don't KNOW.
- Michael Lewis
On 1 September 2011 10:13, Stuart Burnfield <slb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Could we say that "Many people find Wikipedia a useful source of
information, while others caution that it is not a reliable source of
knowledge."
That way Tony wins on information, Geoff wins on knowledge, face is saved,
and the list breathes a sigh of relief and goes about its business.
Stuart
**************************************************
To view the austechwriter archives, go to
www.freelists.org/archives/austechwriter
To unsubscribe, send a message to austechwriter-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
"unsubscribe" in the Subject field (without quotes).
To manage your subscription (e.g., set and unset DIGEST and VACATION modes)
go to www.freelists.org/list/austechwriter
To contact the list administrator, send a message to
austechwriter-admins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************
Other related posts:
