quote:

---

Originally posted by Zero Cool:

How's this for a distinction:

Information = propositions.

Knowledge = verified information (where 'verified' means 'taken to be verified', as opposed to 'actually verified')

---

Based on a previous thread about information/knowledge but I'm touching on a broader issue. Poorly written in one-go:

There is a great deal of cynicism now regarding scientific "advice". In the past, many scientific institutions have makes claims that have been demonstrated to be biased. For instance, claims that tobacco is not harmful to your health, exaggerating the effects of recreational drugs, claims that GM foods are absolutely safe, that so-and-so medicine is fit for human consumption. Not to mention the recent trend of literally inventing new medical conditions in order to create a market for new products.

So we have now come to learn that it is imperative to ask: Who is funding the scientists or organisation? Does a scientist have anything to gain by adopting a certain bias, such as pleasing the boss or perhaps securing some more funding? Or perhaps the scientist is just sloppy and has had a bad record of conducting experiments and as such should not be trusted?

In the last Gulf War there was at least one incident of mass civilian casualties where the Iraqis claimed it was the result of Allied bombing. But the Americans denied this and insisted that the incident was staged by the Iraqi military in order to fabricate civilian casualties and thus evoke sympathy to sway public opinion in their favour.

Political parties have an incentive to serve the interests of their donors at the expense of the "public good". Broadcast networks such as the Murdoch empire have an incentive to capitalise on news items to further their own agenda. We get hoax petitions which we suspect might in fact be elaborate schemes by spammers to collect email adresses. We have some chief executives who have gone through elaborate lengths to enrich themselves at the expense of the pension schemes of their employees, but who tell you that things are just fine.

In this complex world we live in, we are assaulted by information.

A new piece of scientific research claims that a new product will make you healthier. The Iraqis tell you that they are the victims, whereas the Americans portray the Iraqis as conspirators. Political parties tell you that they are acting in your best interests. Email petitions tell you that they are supporting a good cause.

Who do you believe? What is the truth? How can you discover it?

The malaise of our times is that because of this barrage of information, we no longer have the time to study each proposition and come to our own conclusion a.k.a. knowledge (as defined by Zero Cool).

If I questioned every piece of scientific advice that I come across, I might as well be a scientist in that field. But I don't have the time to be a scientist in all the fields of human knowledge, along with being an investigative journalist, an authority on email petitions, and an investment advisor all at once. The list goes on.

The democratisation of broadcast mediums means that at this point, the conspiracy theorists step in. They have finally found their place in the world. They want to fill this void we have here with aliens, pharmacudical companies, political parties, mystery, intrigue, underhand dealings... Or else you have people setting up websites like Snopes.com- the infamous myth busters, full of countless personal biases that the writers have.

Let's get one thing straight- the truth is definitely out there. It is possible in theory to find out whether the scientist is being biased, whether the Iraqis have any WMD's, whether your CEO is linings his pockets at your expense.

Everyone trying to present us with what the truth is. The question should be not WHAT is the truth, but WHY is it so hard to get at.

In our info-society, it seems that we have no choice but to learn to blindly trust certain sources (Orwell: "love Big Brother"). In the 21st century, it seems that knowledge is power. Or else it seems to make you better of than those who don't have the means to arrive at the knowledge that you possess.

But it doesn't have to be this way. Instead we can do away with both conspirators and conspiracy theorists by working towards greater transparency (although I grant you this might be difficult in the era of the couch-potato).

Some signs of progress to this end. Investment advisors that are guests on CNBC now have to declare whether or not they hold any of the stocks that they will be discussing on the show. A few other examples. Been writing for too long, thats my contribution for now.

Great post, Syntax/Free, and I'm glad my definitions apparently have some glue.

It seems like the logical progression of what you're advocating culminates in the formation of a government (perhaps worldwide) organization establishing standards of transparency. Current progress in the area of increasing transparency seems incremental and unfocused. That is, there appears to be nothing which carries the force of focused popular support in this area.

Anyone know if any organizations of this type exist, and how effective they are?

Virtual Reverie: Videogames as VR.

Global organizations for transparency have yet to surface on their own, as far as I know. Many organizations push towards transparency in their own specialties... Doctors Without Borders springs to mind.

On my Soundbag J. LeRoy Reading Listsite, there is a review of David Brin's Transparent Society. Which does an excellent job of examining the trade offs of transparency.

Truthfully, in the spin world we're currently subjected to, the Little George war in Iraq is very transparent. Yesterday, apparently, the Embeds knew about the US soldier who blew up a bunch of other US soldiers before much of the pentagon.

Since this is, basically, the world's first live broadcast war - it was on television immediately.

Whether the embeds are objective is another question, of course.

J.

--
J. LeRoy
Music for a Spoon Fed World
http://www.soundbag.com

The fact that something appears on television doesn't make it transparent. Rummy said as much a couple of daze ago.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mudman:
The fact that something appears on television doesn't make it transparent. Rummy said as much a couple of daze ago.

---

Yep, hense my last sentence.

More to the point, transparency will always be a matter of degrees. Hidden agendas, conspiracies, spin will always be integral to the transparent society. Unless we start peering directly into people's brains.

--
J. LeRoy
Music for a Spoon Fed World
http://www.soundbag.com

C.I.A. Aides Feel Pressure in Preparing Iraqi Reports

Virtual Reverie: Videogames as VR.