4 ms·

> Of course, nowadays I can find this kind of information on the Internet in no time. But, as I said, you never know with the Internet. As much as i respect Um

> Of course, nowadays I can find this kind of information on the Internet in no time. But, as I said, you never know with the Internet. As much as i respect Umberto Eco, i have to say this is a very common mistake amongst people not acquainted with internet. Truth is, you never knew BEFORE the internet. What we account as the truth in books is based around the idea of truthfulness of a particular author. But in reality, and for big period of times in history, lies have been spread by books wich were thought as very respected. And as the 20th century showed us, the best way to prevent lies from spreading, is the free circulation of information. Any clever kid on the street has the capacity to filter the information coming from the internet in a very efficient way. And when you know how to filter, interpret and analyze, i'll go as far as saying, internet is the best source for truth we ever had. Just pray for it to last ..

limist 17y ago
But Eco's perspective is more nuanced than "Internet untrustworthy, books good" or the like. On the second page of the interview is where he gives a little gem on how to train a discerning mind, a modern version of classical rhetoric exercises: Eco: Yes, in the case of Google, both things do converge. Google makes a list, but the minute I look at my Google-generated list, it has already changed. These lists can be dangerous -- not for old people like me, who have acquired their knowledge in another way, but for young people, for whom Google is a tragedy. Schools ought to teach the high art of how to be discriminating. SPIEGEL: Are you saying that teachers should instruct students on the difference between good and bad? If so, how should they do that? Eco: Education should return to the way it was in the workshops of the Renaissance. There, the masters may not necessarily have been able to explain to their students why a painting was good in theoretical terms, but they did so in more practical ways. Look, this is what your finger can look like, and this is what it has to look like. Look, this is a good mixing of colors. The same approach should be used in school when dealing with the Internet. The teacher should say: "Choose any old subject, whether it be German history or the life of ants. Search 25 different Web pages and, by comparing them, try to figure out which one has good information." If 10 pages describe the same thing, it can be a sign that the information printed there is correct. But it can also be a sign that some sites merely copied the others' mistakes. Notice he seems quite familiar with Google and its limitations. As for his educational suggestion, it's excellent in teaching a multitude of high-level skills (research, referencing, comparison, synthesis, re-explanation, skepticism, etc.) but this level of education needs a teacher willing and capable of engaging in dialectic or Socratic dialog with a student. I agree with you that the Internet has made information and knowledge far more accessible than ever before - for those who know where and how to look for it. For many/most other people, it can be even worse than previous propaganda channels of print, radio, or TV. The sheer variety of the Internet guarantees that if you don't want other perspectives and prefer company that thinks like you, you can readily limit yourself.
- Raphael_Amiard 17y ago
  >I agree with you that the Internet has made information and knowledge far more accessible than ever before - for those who know where and how to look for it. For many/most other people, it can be even worse than previous propaganda channels of print, radio, or TV. The sheer variety of the Internet guarantees that if you don't want other perspectives and prefer company that thinks like you, you can readily limit yourself. I definately agree with you, but we're talking about a totally different topic here, the one of self-limitation, or something like that. I know many people around me that are like that. Also , the best way to hide information on the internet, is not to try and prevent it to spread, but much more to drown it into tons of irrelevant content, wich can be a very effective technique, and as tech-oriented fellows, we see that done all the time. This certainly nuances my former post.
teeja 17y ago
"pray for it to last" It could be interesting to discuss what circumstances might bring the 'source for truth' to an end ... what might be done to minimize the loss should it end ... how to route around the damage should the official internet be ended by someone afraid of the truth. It certainly is vulnerable to that ... but that doesn't mean it has to be. Given the history of the world, the net may disappear and reappear several times. Before long, a large chunk of it will fit into a backpack ... WRT 'not knowing before the Internet': you can have a trusted relationship with an author based on years of experience with his/her work. If everything they wrote checked out in the past - and/or they have a reputation for sweating the details - their books are inherently more valuable than a 'net source you're not friends with yet.

limist 17y ago

But Eco's perspective is more nuanced than "Internet untrustworthy, books good" or the like. On the second page of the interview is where he gives a little gem on how to train a discerning mind, a modern version of classical rhetoric exercises: Eco: Yes, in the case of Google, both things do converge. Google makes a list, but the minute I look at my Google-generated list, it has already changed. These lists can be dangerous -- not for old people like me, who have acquired their knowledge in another way, but for young people, for whom Google is a tragedy. Schools ought to teach the high art of how to be discriminating. SPIEGEL: Are you saying that teachers should instruct students on the difference between good and bad? If so, how should they do that? Eco: Education should return to the way it was in the workshops of the Renaissance. There, the masters may not necessarily have been able to explain to their students why a painting was good in theoretical terms, but they did so in more practical ways. Look, this is what your finger can look like, and this is what it has to look like. Look, this is a good mixing of colors. The same approach should be used in school when dealing with the Internet. The teacher should say: "Choose any old subject, whether it be German history or the life of ants. Search 25 different Web pages and, by comparing them, try to figure out which one has good information." If 10 pages describe the same thing, it can be a sign that the information printed there is correct. But it can also be a sign that some sites merely copied the others' mistakes. Notice he seems quite familiar with Google and its limitations. As for his educational suggestion, it's excellent in teaching a multitude of high-level skills (research, referencing, comparison, synthesis, re-explanation, skepticism, etc.) but this level of education needs a teacher willing and capable of engaging in dialectic or Socratic dialog with a student. I agree with you that the Internet has made information and knowledge far more accessible than ever before - for those who know where and how to look for it. For many/most other people, it can be even worse than previous propaganda channels of print, radio, or TV. The sheer variety of the Internet guarantees that if you don't want other perspectives and prefer company that thinks like you, you can readily limit yourself.

Raphael_Amiard 17y ago
>I agree with you that the Internet has made information and knowledge far more accessible than ever before - for those who know where and how to look for it. For many/most other people, it can be even worse than previous propaganda channels of print, radio, or TV. The sheer variety of the Internet guarantees that if you don't want other perspectives and prefer company that thinks like you, you can readily limit yourself. I definately agree with you, but we're talking about a totally different topic here, the one of self-limitation, or something like that. I know many people around me that are like that. Also , the best way to hide information on the internet, is not to try and prevent it to spread, but much more to drown it into tons of irrelevant content, wich can be a very effective technique, and as tech-oriented fellows, we see that done all the time. This certainly nuances my former post.

teeja 17y ago

"pray for it to last" It could be interesting to discuss what circumstances might bring the 'source for truth' to an end ... what might be done to minimize the loss should it end ... how to route around the damage should the official internet be ended by someone afraid of the truth. It certainly is vulnerable to that ... but that doesn't mean it has to be. Given the history of the world, the net may disappear and reappear several times. Before long, a large chunk of it will fit into a backpack ... WRT 'not knowing before the Internet': you can have a trusted relationship with an author based on years of experience with his/her work. If everything they wrote checked out in the past - and/or they have a reputation for sweating the details - their books are inherently more valuable than a 'net source you're not friends with yet.