atw: Re: Wikipedia: A Summing Up
- From: Amanda Cat <amandacat22@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 1 Sep 2011 04:02:56 +0000
I had to Google David Hume and his approach. I therefore count myself not
erudite enough to continue reading this thread.
Bad luck for me, eh?
;)
Amanda
From: geoffrey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Wikipedia: A Summing Up
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 MarnellPrincipal ConsultantAbelard
Consulting Pty LtdT: +61 3 9596 3456F: +61 3 9596 3625M: 0419 574 668W:
www.abelard.com.auSkype: geoffrey.marnellFrom:
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:
