TOK Kailua Class 2014

"In essence, we have transferred (not transformed) our physical identity to online spaces and structures" Pg vi. This is a refreshing comment to hear because typically when people talk about the topic of technology, they are talking about how advanced the world has become and how different everything is. As George Siemens states, the foundation has remained the same, there has just been a shift in where information is. My question is: is it really just a transfer if people portray themselves differently through technology? "The newspaper publishes, we consume. The teacher instructs, we learn. The news is broadcast, we listen" Pg viii. In the paragraph where my previous quote was located, George talks about how along with many other things, the education system has remained remarkably unchanged, but I think that school is one thing that is much different. This quote seems a bit outdated, at least for our school. We are taught to challenge the information we gather and the news we are told, not simply absorb it like we have no opinions of our own. "Emotions influence our ability to see knowledge. They act as gatekeepers to our neural network. Logic cannot begin unless emotions are held in balance" Pg 105. I agree with this because I know that this is the reason doctors aren't allowed to operate on their own family members, but are do they always act as inhibitors? Can emotions provide a new perspective rather than just blind people?

"How deep must change penetrate our organizations before we see systemc change?" p. 5 This line made me think about something I had not previously thought about. Once someone goes against the norm, they are considered 'strange' or 'weird' for doing something differently. But, at what point does this new way of doing something become the norm? At what point in time does something go from being weird to being new, modern, and 'better'? My opinion, which may seem like the easy way out, is that it depends on the situation. "To arrive at a true definition of knowledge is to render it useless for diverse implementation." p. 17 I partially agree with this statement. To label knowledge would definitely limit its versatility. But, like a simple word, knowledge can have multiple definitions. "True knowledge" could be applicable in many different situations. "Our mind is a network…an ecology. It adapts to the environment." p. 27 The only thing I have against this statement is that it is not true all of the time. Granted, the mind may try to adapt to the current situation on is in, but without the proper knowledge of how to complete your task, the adaptation of your mind is useless. "The power to speak exists for everyone ..The power to be heard stll pools." p. 64 This is directly related to what I just said regarding the quote before this. It is true that everyone may talk, but that is worthless without knowing how to be heard. In terms of the statement prior to this, the adaptation of our minds is the power to speak whereas its success is the power to be heard.

"The pursuit of knowledge is ongoing. Unlike most desires, this desire is insatiable" (3) Q: Why do we have such a desire for learning things that are new to us? Most people are uncomfortable with new tasks that they are not comfortable to us. So if we are uncomfortable with these new things then why do we try to do it? "In today's online world, an author can post a series of i deas/writings, and receive critique from colleagues, members of other disciplines, or peers from around the world. " (7) C: With this handy system for global communication data is easier to move around and be revised. In the days of old eg1900s if a document needed to be revised by a person in another region it would need to be shipped or couriered. Before this it would take many months for books or knowledge to get anywhere further than the same region or state. Curiously there were societies on complete other sides of the world but at the same time had the same invention that was fundamental to population growth.

QUOTE: "The categories of human thought are never fixed in any one definite form; they are made, unmade and remade incessantly; they change with places and times." -Emile Durkheim (13) THOUGHT: when i read this it really made me think deeper about knowledge and human thoughts. I feel that what emile Durkheim said was very true and that i could even relate to it. As we learn, expericence, feel, think, get older our thoughts change into different forms. When she said that "the categories of human thought are never fixed in any one definite form" it made me think that thoughts are like the ocean moving, not moving, flowing, changing, and never fixed. Its really hard to explain this because of the depth of this quote but that was the best way to explain my thought of this quote.

"Changes do not manifest themselves significantly in society until they are of sufficient weight and force." pg. 15 After reading this line in the passage it really made me take a step back in think. I have never truly thought about the changes that happen in our society and the journey they have to make to actually make a change. It really made me look at several different elements of businesses, style trends, etc. in life that change certain aspects in society. It amazed me how in some instances, while looking at various different businesses, the journey they had to go through in order to climb their way up and gain a sufficient amount of wait in society before they were able to thrive and cause a change. I feel like this goes for many of the different organizations that are out there such as Invisible Children etc. I say Invisible Children as an example because at first they started off small but after sharing their goal to many different schools and places around the world they grew larger and picked up force finally making it so they were truly heard around the globe. "The pursuit of knowledge is ongoing. Unlike most desires, this desire is insatiable." pg. 15 After reading this I did not specifically have a question that arose in my head, but rather just a spark of curiosity. This sentence made me truly wonder about the human races pursuit for knowledge and how it is the goal of many to collect and maintain as much knowledge as possible. In schooling this is very easy to see. Many students want to be able to gain, grasp and retain as much knowledge that they can in order to thrive in school and give them ease and satisfaction with themselves and what they have done. I guess I do have a question that has popped in to my train of thought. This states that the pursuit of knowledge is a desire of which is not insatiable, but I wonder, will man kind truly never be satisfied? Then again I guess not. The human race is a species of which is usually hard to s

Quote 1: "Knowledge has broken free from its moorings, its shackles." -Back in the day, only rich and high class people were able to learn and become the knowledge holders. Knowledge was really protective and in the quote it says that it was kept in "shackles" which I think is saying that knowledge was really secretive and protective and kept locked away. Today in this day and age, anyone can learn, teach or discover knowledge no matter your class, age or race so the "shackles" on knowledge have been broken off and free of its constraints. Quote 2: "The skills and processes that will make us people of tomorrow are not yet embedded in our educational structures." What are the skills and processes that will make us people of tomorrow? Why is it skills and processes that will make us people of tomorrow? Who are the people of tomorrow? Why can't everyone be themselves to become the people of tomorrow? Shouldn't everyone use their own skills and processes that will make us "the people of tomorrow?"

"Knowledge is not Static" Page 6 -I partly agree and partly disagree with this statement. I think some knowledge can be static. I know what the different colors look like for example and that will never change. Those colors will still look the same. An example of where knowledge isn't static would be in the sciences. There are all kinds of theories that fly around. Scientists discover new things each day and prove other theories wrong. This knowledge is not static and is constantly moving forward. Knowledge is sometimes static and sometimes it isn't. "Knowledge is organization. NOT STRUCTURE." Page 20 -I don't agree with this. Everything needs structure. Knowledge is organized into different categories like history. The history of WWII is organized into one area of knowledge or the the knowledge of physics, but without structure things fall. Structure helps and pulls things together making them whole and making them stand together and strong. Without structure you cannot have something complete for long. If knowledge does not have structure, knowledge falls.

Quote:"In order to understand Beauty, we kill it." and "the categories of human thought are never fixed in any one definite form; they are made, unmade and remade incessantly; they change with places and times. ~Emile Durkheim(13) Thought: The first quote really hit me, it is soo powerful. Because beauty is undefined and not understood by many. And in order to truly understand beauty, Emile thinks that you end up killing all chances of knowing beauty once you try to understand it. Just like the best things in life aren't necessarily things, but the mystery in the world. The second quote i think is an attempt to understand the uncertainty of the world. Since the world is revolving every second, the world is changing by the personalities of people that are roaming earth to the growth of plants around us. Although change is a scary thought it is happening over and over again throughout the day. Thoughts and theories about certain things may be altered by other opinions, but it is also very hard to persuade a stubborn mind.

"The "wisdom of crowds" only works when each member of the collective brings a unique perspective to the space. If we do not permit individuality we end up closing the doors of creativity" Although, assuming more people equals more wisdom isn't necessarily true. It's less about "permitting" individuality and more about the diversity of the crowds. If you bring in a crowd of engineers to collaborate ideas they might have about a poem, they might have similar perspectives. If you have a diverse range of people from different places and lifestyles, that could be an argument for unique perspectives on the poem, or whatever it is. I think permitting individuality would be making that person an individual by putting them among people who are unlike themselves, because an original idea is easily to come by, but a unique idea is much more difficult to come across. We all take inspiration from somewhere, and often times those inspirations overlap, making us similar. Which isn't a bad thing, but in this case, when you want diverse wisdom in crowds, you want to encourage unique perspective. So, in short it's less about 'permitting' individuality (someone will probably be an individual regardless of whether or not you permit it) but rather collecting people from different places so that each perspective is valuable and individual because they are surrounded by people who are unlike them. "Consider an individual who knows of Paris, France. She might be acquainted with alternate terms-city of lights, or famous landmarks and tourist attractions Eiffel Tower. In practice, to visit France is a very different type of knowledge. To dine at L'Absinthe or to view Paris from the Eiffel Tower (sights, sounds, smells) produces a deeper, more contextualized form of knowledge" I think to some extent going somewhere instead of knowing about it definitely changes your knowledge of that place, but in some cases it might not. For example if you read a good book that uses a place you lat

"Knowing Knowledge is directed at two broad audiences: Educators (designers, instructors, and administration) & Business Leaders" (p.IX) I have to agree with the idea that both educators and business leaders are very important in the process of knowledge today, and yet it bothers me to think that they are the MOST important... I believe every single element of our day - and our life - is a step to our personal knowledge, and interaction with the others - our family, our friends, our not-friends - is the most vital source of knowledge. But maybe I have interpreted what Siemens wanted to express wrong ? "It is not "not knowing" that is the problem. It is the lack of doing. . Doing is a form of knowing." (p.124) Not doing, and even most specifically not being interested in knowing, I think is the problem. If you're not curious, knowledge can come to you in the form of information, like Siemens expalins in the first part, and never go beyond simple acquired information. You're creating your own boundaries by not doing as well. These are the real enemies of knowledge. Truly, I think that not knowing is even the key to knowing ; it seems logical if you think of it for a second. No one is born with the knowledge and the fact that there are empty spaces in what you know allows you to fill them up !

"The pursuit of knowledge is ongoing. Unlike most desires, this desire is insatiable." (pg 3) I definitely agreed with this quote, that we, as humans, have this insatiable and ongoing desire of knowledge, that it is built into our species just as the desire for food, water, shelter, and companionship are. It is a sound answer, at least to me, when people question why we must experiment and research and create and discover things that may not actually have a practical application. Even if by understanding we cannot improve, we still wish to understand. I like the word choice of the author here- "insatiable". We can cease to be hungry by eating. We can cease to be thirsting by drinking. But do we cease to be curious by learning? In fact, by learning, we simply open up more doors and more questions and perhaps even further our desire to learn. "The power to speak exists for everyone. The power to be heard still pools. Who are the new oppressed? The oppressed in the digital divide: 1. Those without access to tools of global conversation. 2. Those without skills to contribute to global conversations." (pg 64) I think this quote is very out-of-touch, idealistic, and almost offensive with its blatant failure to acknowledge real oppression and problems in today's world. The power to speak does not exist for everyone. Just because every suburban teenager in America can now take their webcam and post their thoughts to YouTube doesn't mean that we all have this equal power to speak. There are places were the populace holds very little power. Where trying to exercise this apparently universal "power to speak" can have them killed. The standard for oppression has not suddenly changed and become everyone whose Wi-fi is down or who didn't take a basic computer skills course.

"Knowledge itself is strongly relational-it connects to other knowledge. Researchers suggest our brains are actually pained by new information- a disruption that taxes our thinking (it is easier to function from long-term memory than to actively make sense and function in our conscious short-term memory (or working area) of our brain). The more connective a knowledge stream, the more valuable. The more we know of how a society functions…or how computers work, the more holistic our understanding…and as a result, the more complete. It is (obviously) possible to know more if we already possess a large knowledge base. (50)" Knowledge is tied to other knowledge in our brains. That could easily explain why the learning foundation is so important, we tie everything to everything already pre-existing. There should be more focus on that time that busy work in school. One can argue that school is "like real life," but then why aren't all schools put at a standard for "real life toughness?" Again, one can argue that school is required to let kids grow up. I would even agree with that, but why provide busy work when kids can thrive and achieve things that would be harder when they're older? Why not let them gravitate to what they enjoy and let them have a free mind not constricted to society and opinions? "To know today means to be connected. Knowledge moves too fast. for learning to be only a product. We used to acquire knowledge by bringing it close to ourselves. We were said to possess it-to have it exist in our heads. We can no longer seek to possess all needed knowledge personally. We must store it in our friends or within technology. (51)" Are we learning anything? We all can admit to asking friends about homework, losing all of our school knowledge over summer, or asking someone to remind us about something. But why do we do these things? Our brain has the capacity for much more than we use it for, why do we need to use others' brains? Is our education sys

"We are in the early stages of dramatic change- change that wll shake the spaces and structures of our society. Knowledge, the building block of tomorrows riding a tumultuous sea of change. Previously, knowledge served the aims of the economy-creation, producton, and marketing. Today, knowledge is the economy." I agree with this statement. People are dependent on knowledge and the easy access to it that we now have. The world runs on knowledge, and who has it and what holds it. Knowledge is the steel frame underneath the world we live in. And it is changing, and making the world work differently. Knowledge will change, how we see it, understand it, and what is considered our common knowledge will change. Theories will be proven and thrown away, and will change into knowledge. "Knowledge has broken free from its moorings, its shackles." Its true, a long time ago, knowledge wasn't tested or changed, it was just common fact, and the way things where. Only recently we have changed knowledge, and found it more to our advantage. We have looked deeper into things. Long ago knowledge was shackled, stuck one way. The people on planet earth thought that the fact that the earth was flat was common knowledge, and now, we have changed, developed, and seen that the world is indeed a sphere. A long time ago, knowledge belonged to the professionals, the doctors, the teachers, the scientists. Now, it is everyone's for the taking. Having so many people know everything whenever they like may seem good as well, but are there consequences?

"We have always had more access to knowledge than we were able to handle. It has intensified in our generation. Increased global connectedness, socialization, and other factors discussed previously, are accelerating change and knowledge growth. We cannot keep up." (p. 80) I really don't like how the author is implying that growth of knowledge is a bad thing. Whatever the negative effects of global knowledge are, they cannot compare to the impact the good effects have had. The author is not looking at the bigger picture. As individuals, we can only filter the available information to what we need. As a global community, however, we can intake the knowledge in its entirety and use it for the advantage of humanity. The world-wide sharing of knowledge has, not only made the world more innovative as a whole, but it has also created a close-knit sense of community. We have created the "problem", but we have also created the solution. "Does all knowledge change? Is nothing certain?" (p.82) I think that we can never really be sure that what we "know" is fact and that nothing can be truly certain. We used to "know" the world was flat. Today we are "certain" that gravity is what tethers us to our Earth, but who really knows? Knowledge is constantly changing because we can never be truly certain of anything. In all reality, everything is just a theory, whether it be strongly supported or not. Fact is virtually nonexistent, and is only a product of perspective.

"Human existence is a quest to understand." - I really like this quote because it really sums up the meaning of life. All that we are trying to do is to understand. We want to understand anything and everything that we can! Are we disappointed when we don't understand? Is there a limit to how much we can understand? "The value of personal control may reduce diverse experiences beyond our intention." (pg 56) - This is like the personalized bubble that we talked about earlier. We are losing our diversity because information is being personalized for us. We aren't being introduced to the outside world. Thought the internet may seem like it is connecting the world together, it might just be connecting you to people around the world who are just like you. There isn't as much introduction to diversity as we think! "We often learn most through confusion. It is at the point of confusion that we are actively trying to create connections between varying viewpoints and perspectives." (pg 122) - I find this to be very true. I always think about trying to solve a math problem or a new math concept. I sit and think and furrow my brow and am usually on the brink of crying in frustation. I try to connect everything all together and then suddenly... it all clicks. The puzzle comes together after all my confusion and it is the biggest relief! The concepts that I struggle the most with at first are usually the ones that I remember and understand the longest. I think it is the part where we connect everything together.

"Changes do not manifest themselves significantly in society until they are of sufficient weight and force. The building of many small, individual changes requires long periods of time before fundamental change occurs." pg. 3 If it takes many small changes over a long period of time to create a big change then why do people believe that things can change over night? Why do people believe that something big could happen in an hour that would change the course, break the cycle? I believe that this statement is incorrect, I do believe that if people worked together big changes could happen over night, things could change for the better quickly instead of taking several months or years even. "We have created journals, books, libraries, and museums to house knowledge. Most knowledge in these storage structures is in the about and doing levels. Knowing to be, where to find knowledge (in today's environment, knowing how to to navigate knowledge as a process or flow), and knowing to transform are all outside of these container views. Schools, universities, and corporations attempt to serve dissemination processes of knowledge-in-containers. Under the pressure of constat, ongoing change (and being designed to manage products not processes), these organizations are unable to attend to the full array of knowing. For most of us, we find our higher-level understanding through reflection and informal learning, where we engage with knowledge to gain new understanding. The skills and processes that will make us people of tomorrow are not yet embedded in our educational structures. While there are many who are attempting new approches, the vast majority are ensconced in structures, preparing students and employees for a future that will not exist." pg. 10 I think that while we believe we have "contained" knowledge, there is no true way to do it. Knowledge is something that has to be understand by every person. Knowledge gives a person life, it is in no way possible to contain it

Quotation: "Nothing is all -each for a proper concept and proper implementation. When we let go of solutions in advance, and instead embrace a therapy view of functioning, we discover that many of the problems we encounter are solved simply by seeking to understand. When we understand our solutions, but not the problem, we often intensify the situation. Most of our problem-solving is more about enacting a pre-configured solution. We are more about applying solutions than attending to the nature of the concern before us (pg 118)." NOTES: This ought to be common sense. For some things it is, but for others it isn't, and that's just sad. But I agree, when we try to solve the wrong problem we just make everything worse. But I think the difficulty there is that there is no one size fits all way to understand problems. But I also don't think that it problems are necessarily easy to fix once you understand the problem. But they sure are easier to solve! An example: let's say I have been sneezing for three months straight. If I focus only on the symptoms and take dayquill each day instead of trying to understand the problem, I'll never know I have allergies. So I'll never get better and end up feeling terrible. Quotation: "Knowledge possesses different states. Knowledge that has hardened is typically not open for debate (we rarely enter conversations prepared to alter our core beliefs). We are prepared to create constructs to debate knowledge that is malleable (78)." NOTES: Once again, as always, there are things here that I agree with and things that I don't. Maybe people in general don't like to debate about core beliefs, but I do. I enjoy talking about religion, for example. Christianity is within my core beliefs, but I do enjoy debating about it (as do my friends). But it is true that I'm not willing to alter my beliefs while I talk about them. I like talking about both abstract morality (which falls under the malleable knowledge) and functi

"We stand with our feet in two worlds: one in the models and structures that orginated in (and served well) the industrial era, and the second within the emerging processes and functons of knowledge flow in our era today ..Our dual existence is noticed in business, education, and media-we have new tools being used to serve old needs" - page 5 This passage caught my eye because it relates to how public schooling was originally created during he industrial era to produce better factory workers. The author says these "new tools" we have (internet, smartphones, other technology) are still serving an old purpose, and that they'll morph someday into their own thing. My question is this: can new technology go so far with education that it changes the entire structure that schooling has traditionally followed? How dramatically can it change?

"Our relationship to content has to change when content creation accelerates ..We can no longer consume all relevant content items" - page 43 I think this is a major reason that many fields of work are becoming so much more specialized. The more humans learn about the world, the harder it is for someone to maintain expertise in a certain area, so we are subdividing fields of study into more specific fields of study. You don't just have "biologists" now; you have many different types of biologists.

"Knowledge possesses different states…along a continuum. Hard knowledge occurs in fields and eras where change is slow. Through a process of expert validation and acceptance of the public, knowledge acquires solid states. Over the last several decades, more of our knowledge has shifted to soft knowledge. When things change rapidly, many knowledge elements do not have time to harden before they are replaced or amended. Managing hard and soft knowledge (as a continuum, not distinct points) requires different processes." When it comes to knowledge elements always changing or "improving", I must agree. When a new piece of technology comes out, for example phone, Ipod, etc., it doesn't stay out for a long time. Researchers and scientists usually spend their time trying to improve or recreate what they just invented. It gives us, the consumers, no time to get used to the current product. One example would be: the new Ipod comes out and everyone wants to get it, which usually most people do. But there are always some who get it a bit later. Once they get it, say a year later or so, the newest Ipod has just been created. Their Ipod is then out of date. The constant need for improving, or recreating technology is one of the many problems in today's "modern" society.

"How does it happen today? How is knowledge vetted for validity and authenticity? The opinions and views of experts are augmented by trusted networks (like recommender systems in many communities-to validate individuals based on their history and previous activities within a space)" This brought to my mind an earlier topic of discussion that we had in TOK about the validity of experts and caused me to question many things. The quote directly questions how we get our information and how do we know it is correct. It then follows up by saying that the networks who utilize the knowledge gained from these experts validate them as individuals based on their history and previous activities. This gives us reassurance that the information given to us by these networks has gone through some sort of test/filter to make sure it is somewhat accurate and reliable. But then again..do all networks filter their information in this way? I'd hope so, but the reality of this is probably not. Just think, with all the new ways of computing and sharing knowledge, with technology and programs making it easier for anyone to give and edit information on the internet(ehhemm wikepedia) is all this information actually being augmented by 'trusted networks' and even more so, who are these trusted networks and what defines one? "Learning is the equivalent of opening a door to a new way of perceiving and knowing ..An open door leads to corridors of new thought and ways of knowing" This is a really good quote and personally one that i believe strongly in. Learning is an opportunity, an opportunity that opens doors, both physically and mentally. I say physically as learning=education which is schooling and as we all know a good education can get you far in life. In the context of this quote, learning can also open up many doors to a new way of perceiving and knowing and onto new thoughts or 'corridors' of knowing. This is also very true. When you learn something new this can cause you to

"The aim of argument, or of discussion, should not be victory, but progress." - Joseph Joupert (pg. 14) I completely agree with this statement for two reasons, one being that in an argument, there's never a winner. This is because when two people are arguing, they're both standing up for what they believe in; and since when can you be wrong for what you believe in? It may sound flawed when I say that there's never a winner because in debate tournaments, there's always a winner. However, in a normal argument over beliefs, it's not flawed at all. Another reason why I stand by this statement is because most arguments are healthy, if done in moderation. Arguing with someone exercises your rights and beliefs and is what makes you unique. If no one argued in this world, yeah it would be peaceful, but the world would be a boring place too. In order to progress in life, it's essential that you stand with your beliefs because if you can't even believe in yourself and stand for what you feel is right, then life wouldn't be very interesting.

"...new affordances create a new cycle of change pressures." (pg 70) This is his final step in the system of change and i think it is a brilliant point. however i would argue, because i like to argue with these articles, that you do not need too many steps to get from acceptance and ordinary to change. Take natural changes, it can be completely unpredictable that a natural disaster will happen yet when it does it changes things on its own of no human choice. however to stay relevant enough to what he describes in his article take the example that you give someone pressure to change something. in a class for example we might have to change one persons meaning to interpret something new and the best interpretation gets the best grade. you have not allowed for "new space and development" to open up for all of the ideas because there are so many children in one classroom and there is no time. yet you have added pressure and received change. im in fact sure someone could find an easier way of change. "Our ability to pay attention i s overwhelmed....""...Why is our attention so valuable?" I think he set this up to answer himself, a useful technique, but he does have something behind this. because really we are all straining to learn more in more. in a while he goes on to say its to compete, and come out on top with the information described as most important that we chose to understand and that might have been true 10-20 years ago but the answer is actually changed (refer to first quote). but if he is truly trying to find the reason to why we are so strained for this knowledge i would say it is because it is expected of us. and that expectation has changed by definition to mean consequential if we don't do what is expected. school, life, in conversations, people say they expect us to ... and they really mean that we must and we understand that, thus we do what is expected. and today with all the knowledge library we have built, more than we can know at anyone time, be

"We stand with our feet in two worlds: One in the models and structures that originated in (and served well) the industrial era, and the second within the emerging processes and functions of knowledge flow in our era today." As I read this quote it reminded me of how everything has changed just within the past few decades. Technology has advanced so far that we are able to communicate with some all the across the world in so many ways. While not even a few decades ago our grandparents and parents had just barely began using cell phones to contact family and friends. This quote made me think that if the telephone had not been invented: would we grow closer to the friends around us? If certain technologies like the telephone, computer, TV had not been invented would humans be able survive and become more closely bonded or would the human race start to destroy ourselves? "From an early age, we view 'not knowing as a short coming, rather than a revelation. Perhaps it is in our nature to desire to banish the uncomfortable feelings of not knowing something. We like clear black and white, always true answers." This quote actually made me think of a time that I did not know something. I remember being really irritated because I felt I needed to know yet at the same time, I was worried that when I found out it might make me regret it. For example, you always want to know what your friends or classmates are talking about (even if it is something small) because you are always intrigued by secrets. However if it is like happens to get you in trouble later then you might regret knowing. The second part of the quote where it is talking about black and white answers made me think about right and wrong and how one person's heritage might say it is okay and in fact looked up upon while another would simply look at that action as disgraceful. An example of this would be Americas vs. Japanese tourists. In Japan if they go on any trips pretty much a

"In essence, we have transferred (not transformed) our physical identity to online spaces and structures." How is it that our physical world isn't changing in terms of our surroundings, yet we have transfered online? Shouldn't we be changing our way of life in reality? Life is to short to live in boring spaces, we as a human race need to make our surroundings more interesting, more colorful. Why do classrooms have desks and boring chairs? We could still have desks, but at least have couches and sofas, something to make us comfortable as we work.

"It is designed to mimic the chaotic, complex, but holistic, nature of knowledge (and learning) in today's organizations- an attempt to duplicate knowledge in form, not only content." Wouldn't it be great if we could take information, turn it into knowledge, and then just put it into our head. We wouldn't need tests, we could just know. Also, if there is no definition of knowledge, how do we know if we're knowledgeable about something? Are we knowledgeable, our are we just informed, and well learned?

"Mass meda and education, for example, have been largely designed on a one-way flow model (structure.imposed by heirarchy) ..Heirarches, unlike networks and ecologies, do not permt rapd adaptation to trends outside of estabilshed structure...Structures created by a select few and.imposed on the many" (8) I agree with this quote and believe it to be true in its entirety. There is a lot of hype about the media being brain washing and manipulating but there hasn't been a real justification on how. This quote kind of explains why; media is designed to influence a whole population, but yet only few peoples ideas and opinions go into it. The people that create tabloids and the top 10 beauty products aren't looking out for peoples best interest, they just want to entertain and sell a product. These small hierarchies have a set way of imposing on the public which is hardly ever adapted or changed due to outside causes. For example, clothing stores and other influential businesses for young women and teens haven't changed the qualifications for models or the advertisements they use, even though the percentage of teen eating disorders have risen substantially due to media influence. We advance humanity's potential through knowledge...We advance humanity through emotion (103) I agree with this idea. I feel this quote means that and idea can spark a movement but actually advancing in this movement takes perseverance and heart. Knowing whats right is the easy part but actually going through with doing the right thing is the hard part. For example, during the Civil Rights movement, it was easy for some people to see the discrimination of African American people was unjust, yet many Americans did nothing but sit aside and watch the terror happen. The future of humanity was there in front of us, but little action was taken; America had the knowledge of what was right but many hid their faces in fear. It wasn't long before those stood up and helped changed th

"Human existence is a quest to understand." This quote was extremely interesting to me because I agree with it. Human existence is a quest to understand I believe that humans are capable to help the world and do in some ways, but we mainly harm the earth and cause problems like global warming. I don't quite understand why humans exist when we cause more harm to the world then help. I feel that human existence will always be a quest to understand because there is no answer to it. It is so absurd that we were placed onto earth without a function and reason. Unless there is a reason for human existence and we don't know about it quite yet. Is there a purpose for humans? I also curate about why humans always search for reasons. Is human existence to complex for us to understand? Is there a greater power calling the shots? Do we need to understand everything? "Our ability to pay attention i s overwhelmed....""...Why is our attention so valuable?" I also liked this quote because attention is something everyone struggles with at one time or another. I feel that attention is so valuable because it is something that helps get students good grades, helps one listen, and helps a worker work. Without being able to pay attention nothing would get done, nothing would get taught, and no one would learn. Attention is valuable because it is how things get done. Can things get done without paying attention? The other asked this question so that he could explain it to the audience and how attention is something that people expect out of other people. If someone was unable to pay attention then they would be labeled as unacceptable because it is what we already expect others to have like we expect people to know how to walk. Although some people are better at paying attention then others we all know how to do it and it's value. We as people do what were expected to do ,or try out hardest at least, so we therefore try our best to pay attention.

"The content that we debate is of less significance, because how it is processed is a function of the construction itself." Page 66 I had to read this passage several times to understand what it meant. I was tripped up on it at first. I didn't really understand. But after I looked at it for a while I realized that this passage is about. I can assimilate this passage with news agencys, for example journalists in the field will collect their experiences differently based on their perspective and how they were raised. I think this is why we see the polar opposites of NBC and Fox News for example. They are just gathering information differently. Congress is another place, many pollutions debate different ideas and feelings they have toward different subjects, they debate its self is not important but the way that information in the debate was collected. How can we impart to others that the knowledge of acquisition is more important than the knowledge of how to debate? "We need the voices of both the scientist and the artist. Neither one is necessarily better than the other." Page 108 I don't know about this quote. I don't think I can agree with it. I think that what a scientists has to say helps more with the physical states of life and the artist can help with the spiritual and the mental side of life. I think that personally I can assimilate with the scientist more than the artist because that is the way my brain is wired. I just see myself more in the science field than art. But I think that the arts are just as important but are often looked down upon because they are thought of as not so important. My question is: "How can the arts and sciences both be treated with the same level of respect?

"Learning is the equivalent of opening a door to a new way of perceiving and knowing ..An open door leads to corridors of new thought and ways of knowing" This was my absolute favorite quote of the reading (in fact I screenshotted it for myself to have:)) I think that the reason I liked it so much was because I could relate to it. This class alone has taught me so many new ways of learning that I never even would have imagined before. By knowing now about all of these ways of learning and different topics, perspectives, etc, I have more opportunities to understand and apply them to my life in order to better experience new things. This actually sounds pretty cheesy now that I am rereading it, but it's so true!! Im sure you can relate once you read this article. "In order to understand Beauty, we kill it." Ummmm can you say powerful??? Just the way this quote rolls off of the tongue is remarkable. I mean, I have never heard of putting kill and beauty in the sentence, but the way in which the author puts it in this context is exquisite. Have you ever heard of the quote "beauty is in the eye of the beholder"? Because these can go hand in hand (they certainty did for me!). Beauty is the one common ground of society: everything is based on beauty really. Some even say that "beauty is power" but in order to understand beauty we kill it? just this mindset for me takes me a step back to look at the different perspectives this one quote can contain. Ahhhhh this is just such a deep quote!

It is not "not knowing" that is the problem. It is the lack of doing. . Doing is a form of knowing." (p.124) Doing is a way of learning and acquiring the knowledge of a certain subject. Doing is the best way of learning because you can learn from your mistakes. I also believe that doing something gives you more than just information, it gives you many different skills as well. The quote is saying how not doing is why we lack knowledge but it is really because of the lack of interest in a certain topic. Us as humans are driven by what we love so we do what we love. Knowledge in the form of doing is the best way of learning in my eyes.

"The pursuit of knowledge is ongoing. Unlike most desires, this desire is insatiable." pg. 15 This quote makes my mind ponder on how us as humans are driven by the pursuit of knowledge. For example a kid goes surfing because he wants to pursue his dream of gaining the knowledge of what it is like to go surfing. It makes me think about how much effort the human race has gone through. It makes my mind ponder on the fact that when we gain knowledge on a fact, we just want to go farther and investigate the topic to the fullest extent. This quote is saying how we go to our limits and try to pursue knowledge to get the feeling of satisfaction. My real question is "Will we ever be satisfied with our knowledge"? Everyone in our world is trying new things to try and satisfy themselves, so will we ever stop searching for more knowledge?

"Our mind is a network…an ecology. It adapts to the environment." (p. 27) I really like this. It connects more than one subject. It combines psychology and biology. Our mind has to adapt to the world. For example minds were different back in the early 1990's than now in 2012. The world and environment is changing and thoughts and ideas are changing. We have to think differently. People before thought blacks and whites weren't equal, that women shouldn't vote, etc. But no days that is different and we have learned to think this way. "The pursuit of knowledge is ongoing. Unlike most desires, this desire is insatiable." (p.15) This is in interesting quote. It makes me think a lot. I desire to learn more. Not about everything but even life. I want to learn about the world, about people, about sports, love, friendships. You are always trying to learn new things. By reading books or even by experiences. Learning helps you understand things more and to get better at things. We all desire to learn different things. While I desire to learn more about animals another person might desire to learn about cars. A question that I saw that really blew my mind was by Evan Phillipson. He said "Will we ever be satisfied with our knowledge?" and will we? Will we ever stop wanted to learn or not what to learn anymore? When you are a grandpa or grandma will you stop learning?

"We often learn most through confusion. It is at the point of confusion that we are actively trying to create connections between varying viewpoints and perspectives." (p.112) This is my favorite quote. I absolutely agree with this quote. I feel I learn the most when I am confused. Because when I don't understand something I will on my own research it and try to figure it out. I end up learning so much more on what I was confused about. I find out other perspectives on it and understand it. By just saying "I don't get it or I don't understand this" you can get an explanation from someone that can be deeper than what you would have gotten if you understood it off the bat. When I get explained things, because 'I'm confused about it, they try to go deeper to explain every little bit of it. Does other people learn more from confusion? If so how do they deal with it?

"To know today means to be connected. Knowledge moves too fast. for learning to be only a product. We used to acquire knowledge by bringing it close to ourselves. We were said to possess it-to have it exist in our heads. We can no longer seek to possess all needed knowledge personally. We must store it in our friends or within technology. (51)" I agree with this because i think in this current generation there is too much knowledge we are expected to learn in school, social situations and a work place. I believe we are no longer possessing most knowledge but only fragments we posses. I think we are storing this knowledge in a short term memory and in places we can readily find it again. For example we can all admit to loosing most of what we learned last year in school over the course of the summer break. Except for the basics which i believe stick with us. "We have always had more access to knowledge than we were able to handle. It has intensified in our generation. Increased global connectedness, socialization, and other factors discussed previously, are accelerating change and knowledge growth. We cannot keep up." (p. 80) I agree that "We have always had more access to knowledge than we were able to handle. It has intensified in our generation. Increased global connectedness, socialization, and other factors discussed previously, are accelerating change and knowledge growth" but i don't like how this author is insinuating that this excess of knowledge is a bad thing because i think that the bad effects of having excess information like it being harder to find what we need and finding the truth. Does not compare to the good of having this much information like being able to learn from our mistakes , it can provide new things for the future and branch off of new things once thought as excess and unnecessary.I believe that the sharing of knowledge has, made the world more innovative as a whole, and also created a sense of community among the intern

pg. vi "We are able to describe, not define knowledge." Why are we unable to define knowledge? We are able to define what many things are, but why is it hard for us to define knowledge? The answer is scary. We don't truly know knowledge, therefore we can't define it. How do we know what knowledge is? When will we be able to know what is and is not knowledge?

pg. 3 I would have to completely disagree with the statements made on this page. According to the author, many small changes lead to large changes over long periods of time. In fact, many changes have been made within the past 100 years, each one making dramatic impacts on society. 20s- 2-color technicolor in films 30s- 3 strip technicolor and talking pictures 40s- Atomic bomb 50s- Color tv 60s- Traveling to the moon 70s- internet and computers 80s- Nintendo/NES, synthesizers 90s- MP3 players, macs 00s- Ipods, Touch-screen devices

"The categories of human thought are never fixed in any one definite form; they are made, unmade and remade incessantly; they change with places and times." - Emile Durkheim (Sec1:13) Not only thoughts can be thought of, changed and changed again but information and knowledge, too. Information changes all the time. For example, billions of years ago, before Galileo, it was known that the earth was flat. Now we know that the earth is round, thanks to Galileo for rediscovering what the Greek knew. That information changed with time and place and that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around. "We are able to describe, not define knowledge." (sec2:vi) Is knowledge indefinable? If knowledge keeps getting bigger, isn't there a endless description of what knowledge is because it changes?

"What happens when all of my information comes only from sources that promote view points I already hold? It's easier to access…and to ignore diverse viewponts" pg. 94 I agree with this statement because if you only get your information from one source then you think that must be correct. If something is repeated enough then our brain assumes it must be. Plus if you think something then you only want to read what says your viewpoint. "Physcal and virtual realtes are blurring." They are most definitely not. Every normal person can tell the difference between real life and virtual life. This is something the media likes to say so they can have a news story and a scapegoat for any violent crimes committed by teens and 20ish year olds. I totally disagree with this statement.

"The power to speak exists for everyone ..The power to be heard stll pools." page 64 I agree with this quote because everyone has the ability to talk to someone to share there information that they have. But without having the proper knowledge to influence people to actually listen to what you have to say, then what is the point of knowing the things that you know. And if you don't figure out how to do this then your knowledge that you spent your whole life figuring out becomes useless because nobody will know what you learned. "In today's online world, an author can post a series of i deas/writings, and receive critique from colleagues, members of other disciplines, or peers from around the world. " page 7 I think that people now days have it so much more easier than people did in the past. We have all these fancy new technologies that allows us to do things that people in the past would proably not even dream about. I am happy that even i have the ability to post something on the internet and get responses from people all around the world.

"Mass media and education for example have been largely designed on a one way flow model.Heirarches,unlike networks and ecologies do not permit rapid adaption to trends outside of established structure. Structure's created by a select few and imposed on the many." Page 10 I completely agree with this statement because it shows how static education can be and there is not much that a education system can do to change it. I do believe however that by adding technology into learning criteria and schools can help put education into the world of adaptation and allow it to progress into the more fast pace technological world of today. I like the quote about structure being created by a select few but imposed on many and this is because I believe our world trust the Internet too much and just because several people wrote about it everyone should believe it because its online. I don't believe this a good way to learn information. It does seem like my beliefs contradict each other but what I mean to say by not trusting everything on the Internet is that everybody should do some research themselves and go through several sources before agreeing to something. Is there is any other way for schools to add in technology in learning other than putting it in the criteria when learning? Why is it that students now a days learn better in technology based learning than adults when they were students?

"For most of us, we find our higher-level understanding through reflection and informal learning, where we engage with knowledge to gain new understandings." (pg.10) -What would the author characterize as informal learning? He makes a good point, but uses a very vague term to prove the validity of his point, so it doesn't sound very reliable. It sounds as though he just made that phrase up in an attempt to seem more intellectual. "The pursuit of knowledge is on going. Unlike most desires, this desire is insatiable." (pg.3) - I totally agree with this! No matter how much human's know, which is a lot, they always want to know more. Weather it be a subject that has just been discovered or new information on a subject that we've known about for hundreds of years. Human's can't stop their hunger for knowledge because of it is power. Some people who can't seek power through social status or natural talent resort to power from knowledge.

"Learnig iss continual ..It.s not an activity that occurs outside of our daily lives" - This line really stuck out to me at how true it is. We really never stop learning. Though we may only learn small things at once with little observations, we are always learning. Now, it is part of our daily lives and how we function as people. Everywhere you go you will probably learn something new, even though it may be a small fact. "A conversation.s an object It is formed and frame worked as negotiated by parties " - All conversations are formed by the participants. If you want a good conversation then you have to try and make it a good conversation. Those who expect a formed conversations without trying are going to have a bad time. In this modern day I notice more and more how lazy people tend to get with conversations. Replying with on word, bad body posture, ect. If conversation is to live then we need to change how we conduct it. Really, you decide if you want a conversation to be good or bad depending on how much effort you put into it.

"Emotions influence our ability to see knowledge. They act as gatekeepers to our neural network. Logic cannot begin unless emotions are held in balance" Pg 105. I completely agree with this. If we mix our emotions with knowledge, what comes out is biased and construed. How many times we done something based off of emotion, not knowledge? It happens to the best of us. Emotions can do one of two things: it can act as a haze to make the knowledge appear jumbled or it can make the knowledge seem clearer. "How deep must change penetrate our organizations before we see systematic change?" p. 5 People who cause change or don't conform are met with opposition. That opposition will always be there and will often times discourage said person. But after a while either the opposition begins to fade, or something stranger occurs. I think that it's not so much "how deep must change penetrate" but is instead how different must the change be for us to notice it.

"Knowledge is the economy. What used to be the means has today become the end." Pg. 3 At first, I accepted this quote. But when I really started thinking about it, I don't think it is true. We don't want knowledge simply for the sake of having knowledge. I do not think acquiring knowledge is the end of the road. Knowledge is still the means. We need knowledge because we want to create, we want to build, we want to understand how the world works so we can work with it or against it. There are reasons why we seek knowledge. If any knowledge is the economy, it is the knowledge of how to categorize, organize, and make knowledge more accessible. Knowledge is incredibly important, yes, but what we do with our knowledge is more important than the knowledge itself. I think this is the way it has always been, and the way it will continue to be. "In order to understand beauty, we kill it. And in the process, we understand more about our nature and less about beauty." Pg. 13 I love this quote…It is so poetic. We take things that are beautiful, and we analyze them over and over again. tainting the world with our humanness. We dissect things. The only way to study the butterfly: capture it and pin it up on a bulletin board under a magnifying glass. But some things become beautiful through understanding. It's just a different kind of beauty. Perhaps the flawed, human kind. How do we define beauty, anyway? It is a human idea, a construct. It means something different for every person. If we do not recognize it as beauty, can we still "kill" it in trying to understand it?

"In each context, one view may be the most appropriate. Paul Boghossian, in his exploration of truth, belief, and facts, rejects the notion that 'all views are equally valid'" (p. 13) Paul Boghossian sounds like he is on the right track. Some views are based on lies and deception, which can be powerful tools against the uninitiated. There are a lot of ways that viewpoints can be corrupted in a way that leaves them no longer valid. Simple misunderstandings or freak personal experiences can change a person's opinion so that it no longer properly encompasses all the parameters, or reflects an opinion, of the real issue. "Unfortunately, education (K-12, higher, and corporate) is built on the model that we can fit what is important into one person's head." (p. 120) I strongly agree with this statement. While there is a lot of general knowledge that everyone needs to know, there should be a lot more specialization when it comes to education. Not everyone needs to know calculus or how many people died in the Battle of Waterloo. It doesn't make sense to try and teach everyone everything. People put more energy and care into things they want to do. When people are forced into learning things that they have no interest in, it's not easy on anyone. The students don't want to learn and the teachers get less joy from teaching. Also, people tend to forget things that don't interest them very quickly. As a result, all the time, energy, and resources spent teaching someone something, can become a total waste within a few years. Furthermore, it is more beneficial for a society to have diversely educated people, creating a well-rounded population, rather than trying to make every person learn everything.

"To arrive at a true definition of knowledge is to render it useless for diverse implementation". (Page 17) I like this a lot because it really made me think if we have actually arrived at a true definition of knowledge. From what I know of, I can't come up with an instance of where we came up with a true definition of something. People all over the world have different definitions on things, so there is no way that something like this could happen. People view knowledge s so many different ways that you really can't define anything to a full extent where there is so more to learn about it. "Yesterday's predictions have become today's reality. And in the course of that makeover, we have become more frenetic, more distracted, more fragmented-in a word, more hyperactive" (pg 69) This quote from Richard has made me view knowledge in different way. Richard has a point, what I think he is saying is that people these days need to slow down. We are always in a rush and like he says are more hyperactive then we used to be. I agree with this, because people are always on the move trying to get where the need to be. I think everyone should take a break and really just try something new. Knowledge is one of the main thinks that has changed with humans, the way we lean now, is way different than it used to be. And knowledge needs to return back to the good old days.

"My worry is that the superabundance of information is devaluing knowledge." I disagree with this quote because I believe that technology spits out information but humans have to put it together to form knowledge. I don't think knowledge could be devalued by an abundance of information, I think that with more information there should be more accurate knowledge because that means more perspectives are available. Larry Sanger is making it sound like it's a bad thing to have more knowledgeable people in the world. Sure it's less impressive when people know facts but isn't it better to have an overall more educated society? "In fact, on many online knowledge websites, we often have no names, pictures, or any information at all, about the people that we converse or work with online." Why is this important considering people don't personally know writers of books either? Adding on to my question: we don't always know how biased factual books are either or if all of the sources were cited so why is the internet any less trustworthy?

"The Internet is making this old and difficult problem even worse. If we had an abundance of information in, say, the 1970s, the Internet has created a superabundance of information today." Larry Sanger, the author of this article, is talking about the internet with such distaste. He tells us that in the old days, there was already an abundance of information in books and t.v. shows - the only problem was, you had to search through those book and watch all of those shows for the one snippet of information you were looking for. I am disagreeing with what Sanger said in this quote. Although, yes, there may be more information than we know what to do with, but the purpose of the internet is not to inundate us with information; with this invention, we can easily find the one piece of knowledge we needed without having to read a whole book or watch a whole movie. "The more that information piles up on Internet servers around the world, and the easier it is for that information to be found, the less distinctive and attractive that knowledge will appear by comparison." Just because there is more information to be seen, it does not lower the appearance of knowledge. Just because something valuable is surrounded by non-important things, it does not lower the value of the original object (or, in this case, knowledge). Therefore, I am disagreeing with this assertion as well. "The Internet is less a publishing operation than a giant conversation." Couldn't this be beneficial? Isn't this similar to group work or crowdsourcing? People are working together to put out new ideas that others may not have thought of. At the same time, if someone says something that is incorrect, others can correct them and provide truth information which can turn into knowledge if its reader so desires. "But if I then read the news in a few other, more credible sources, then my belief becomes much better justified, and then I can be said to know." But since there is

"Information is easy, knowledge is difficult" this was the title and stuck out more then anything in this passage. Have we lost knowledge due to knowledge? now that i think about it everything im learning in school is information, things i go on the web for are just information. Are we losing knowledge? "It's a very old observation that the most ignorant people are usually full of opinions, while many of the most knowledgeable people are full of doubt." i do not fully agree to this quote because i feel that most knowledgeable people would not be full of doubt because they are knowledgeable to know they should not feel so much doubt. "But the actual mental work that results in knowledge of a topic cannot be made much easier, simply because no one else can do your thinking for you. So while information becomes nearly instantaneous and dead simple, knowledge is looking like a doddering old uncle." true.

"First, we can make a role for experts in Internet communities. Of course, make the role so that does not conflict with what makes the community work. Don't simply put all the reins of authority in the hands of your experts; doing that would ensure that the project remains a project by and for experts, and of relatively little broader impact. But give them the authority to approve content, for example, or to post reviews, or other modest but useful tasks. My hope is that, when the general public work under the "bottom up" guidance of experts, this will have some good effects." A fitting video response: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WNTk29zXl4A This contradicts much of what I feel was discussed in the article. One of the points being the anonymity involved in sharing information and knowledge. On the internet nobody knows you're a dog. And no one knows you're an expert, either. It would also diminish the allure that everyone on the internet is essentially equal. I like that the internet is an equal playing field, and for the most part I am not concerned about biased, half-baked, or false knowledge on the internet. I don't venture onto forums, comments section, or discussion boards all too often when looking for information. I don't think being corrupted by conspiracy theories or half truths is something the average internet user encounters often, and when they do, they should know to be somewhat skeptical. And when false facts spread around the internet like "Albert Einstein failed math in highschool!!1" or "marijuana will cure your cold~!", they aren't very important and to anyone who cares to figure it out can find information to contradict this with a google search. " The point is that most of the stuff that you typically find on the Internet is pretty lightweight. It's Info Lite." It really depends. When I go on the internet for amusement I can read books, the news, look at peoples art and learn a language. Or I can go on Facebook (which I don't thi

"Information is easy, knowledge is difficult." Although this is only the first line of the reading multiple thoughts came crashing through my thought stream. I mainly want to comment that I agree fully with this quote. The reason is because having information and having knowledge are completely different. Having information is just like simply memorizing facts for a test while having knowledge of something is knowing about the subject on various different levels and somewhat in depth. One question that I have pertaining to this quote is: Should schools start to ensure that children have knowledge on a topic rather than just retain information so that they will have it in the long term? I personally think that this would be a really good idea to integrate into school, especially with high school student because it will aid them greatly in the long run. "On a certain utopian view, no one should be held up as an expert, and no one should be dismissed as a crackpot. All views, from all people, about all subjects, should be considered with equal respect." I find this quote really interesting. I think that it is an interesting perspective to make it so everyone has view and opinions that are viewed equally. But I feel like if that were to be true and everyone thoughts were viewed as being equal what would happen to the title of "expert"? Would there still be experts? What if an idea were so completely and utterly ridiculous? Would we still keep to the utopian view and view it equally as the "better" opinions of the same particular subject?

"Google, by the way, was responsible for two thirds of those searches." That is crazy that two thirds of the six millions searches done in December of 2007 were googled! But when I really thought about it, I personally do rely on Google quite a lot, and so do many others. Google is a quick way to search the web about a question or fact and get the answer quickly. What would the internet be like if Google never existed? Would the internet be a completely different? "…superabundance of information devalues knowledge, because the means of solid knowledge are decidedly more difficult and less sexy than the Info Lite that it is so easy to find online." I don't necessarily agree with this quote, I mean I can see where he's going with his argument, but I do think that there is solid knowledge that is easy to find, I'm looking more at a medical stand point though. There are really good medical websites like WebMD and Mayo clinic and of course any hospital/doctors websites. In this case, finding the knowledge is easy, but it just might not be as understandable to a normal person who has no background in the medical field.

" The sources that are more likely to help you in your quest for knowledge look very boring by comparison. My point here is that the superabundance of information devalues knowledge, because the means of solid knowledge are decidedly more difficult and less sexy than the Info Lite that it is so easy to find online." -What if we made Knowledge nicer to look at? Some people prefer cold knowledge over just information even if it looks less "sexy". What if it was easier to find knowledge? In this world where knowledge is so easy to find and all you can find is encyclopedias online about a certain topic then wouldn't people complain about having not enough small bits of information? Do we need a perfect blend of knowledge and information or is one truly better than the other? "Having "information at our fingertips," clearly, sometimes makes us skip the hard thinking that knowledge requires." -I think that even the smallest bits of information can be thought about. It could be something so simple but yet you could pose so many questions and think about it deeply. You may just be looking in the wrong place. The person describing whats happening here is lazy people. There are others on the internet who could write so much about such simple information. There are also huge things about knowledge that make people skip hard thinking as well. It goes both ways.

"To be quite sure of an answer still requires comparing multiple sources, critical thinking, sometimes a knowledge of statistics and mathematics, and a careful attention to detail" - It's cool that we've studied how sites like wolfram alpha does that part for us! Though this article points out that this may not be a good thing - this is making it even easier for us to obtain information by doing the critical thinking for us. Maybe we should be putting more effort into the info we gain so that we may hold it at a higher value and connect it more to the big picture, hence turning it into knowledge. "Before the Internet, we were already awash in information." - I've never thought about this before! It's true, we already did have too much for one person to be able to understand, and then with the internet, information was almost devalued again. "The point is that most of the stuff that you typically find on the Internet is pretty lightweight. It's Info Lite." - I find this kind of scary. Our world is becoming shallower and shallower. We have information, but because we have so much at our finger tips, it would have to really stand out to convince us to explore it further. I wonder what effect this might have on the future? "Being a skeptic, I would actually say that we can't have knowledge about such complex issues, or at least, not very certain knowledge - I'm kind of in the middle about this one. I feel like there is knowledge out there about these complex issues, it just has to be sorted through the opinion. You can have an opinion on something and also have knowledge on it!

Quote: "But the actual mental work that results in knowledge of a topic cannot be made much easier, simply because no one else can do your thinking for you." Thought: You have to think for yourself, so always make sure the knowledge you recieve seems reasonable and don't always let the first information you hear become your knowledge. Make sure you are open minded before you open your mouth to speak what you think. Quote:" If we include a modest role for experts in more of our Internet communities, we'll have better information to begin with, and better role models" Thought: I keep questioning this quote, because how do you define an "expert". If he wants us to have experts release information to society, how are we going to find these experts. So because one guy may have a masters degree in the subject he is considered an "expert" rather than someone who wasn't able to receive a degree but has been studying in the field for far longer than the "expert". I just don't understand how they don't except the knowledge from someone who had experience in the field.

"My point here is that the superabundance of information devalues knowledge, because the means of solid knowledge are decidedly more difficult and less sexy than the Info Lite that it is so easy to find online." Yes and no... Ok, a nice video summing up the big lines of a History topic will be far more interesting than a heavy web page discussing about it in terribly small characters. But then, what if the content was the same ? Why bother with the web page ? I think it is about the format, at some point, and also about what you decide to do with the information. "The more that we study issues, and justify our beliefs, the more likely our beliefs are to be correct." How I wish this was true ! But I sometimes fell like the more I look after an answer, the harder it is to say if I'm getting closer. For example : I was reading this book about being a vegetarian, hoping it would help me determine whether I should eat meat or not... It only confused me more. So I allow myself to doubt this statement.

"My point here is that the superabundance of information devalues knowledge, because the means of solid knowledge are decidedly more difficult and less sexy than the Info Lite that it is so easy to find online." Never having really lived without the internet, I can't say I'm extremely qualified to answer to this, but I don't think that the laziness and lack of desire for solid knowledge is something that the internet invented. I think that there are people who will not search for solid knowledge know when they can have Info Lite, and they would not have searched for solid knowledge when it meant doing hours of research in the library. Isn't it better that they at least have some level of knowledge now? In addition, while "true" knowledge may still be difficult to find, I still believe it is easy than it used to be, with this superabundance of information that we can sift through. For this reason, perhaps more people will take this time to find true knowledge. I can see some people ignoring deep knowledge for "Info Lite", but it isn't fair to make that assumption about all people. "Well, I think many of us would actually trust an anonymous person more than we would trust our more eccentric acquaintances." I think that at some point, when the internet was newer, there was a tendency to accept it as an undisputed expert. The internet was an unknown, something new and technological and the people that were posting on it must know what they're talking about. But as we have started using the internet more and more in our everyday lives, as we have realized that we can post absolutely whatever we want on the internet with little to no repercussions, other people can do the same as well. We have learned to be discerning in our acceptance of the facts we find on the internet. "If it's on the internet, it must be true" is said sarcastically every time someone collects an unbelievable fact from the internet.

ARTICLE: How the Internet is Changing What We Think We Know: Quotation: "Here you might wonder: if justification, and therefore knowledge, is really so difficult, then why go to all the trouble?" No, I've never wondered. But now that you bring it up, it is a good point. Why bother? For me, I guess I just have a desire to know. I want to understand the people and the world around me. I want to make sense of the chaos. I think that's why we go through all the trouble: because we want to impose the illusion of order upon the chaotic universe. So we create beliefs and support those beliefs so that we can, by extension, support our world view. Quotation: "I've always been personally uncomfortable representing myself online in any other way than how I really am." Online, I'm generally similar to myself. I don't create avatars, really, because I don't play games that require it. As a personality, I usually represent myself as I do in person. If you meet me on Nerdfighteria.org you will find a Star Trek nerd who loves to write but can't spell. I don't pretend to be smarter than I am or any less nerdy. But the problem, of course, is that I don't know if other people are being as honest as I am. How can I know? So I am a little more guarded. But of course all this begs the question: what is your identity? I'm a *generally* consistent person in how I act in different social settings, but many people oscillate even in person ("first life"). Sure, in avatars there is a clear cut line as to how you represent yourself, but what about on a wider context? Just because people reinvent themselves online, does that mean that person that they have become is any less real?

"For all that, knowledge is, I'm afraid, not getting much easier. To be quite sure of an answer still requires comparing multiple sources, critical thinking, sometimes a knowledge of statistics and mathematics, and a careful attention to detail when it comes to understanding texts. In short, knowledge still requires hard thought. Sure, technology is a great time-saver in various ways; it has certainly made research easier, and it will become only more so. But the actual mental work that results in knowledge of a topic cannot be made much easier, simply because no one else can do your thinking for you. So while information becomes nearly instantaneous and dead simple, knowledge is looking like a doddering old uncle." I feel like this passage is relating our "superabundance" of information to "cheating", as if looking up a quick fact online is like copying someone's homework. But with the growing complexity of our world and how it works, I think we need this "cheating". We can no longer have a full understanding of everything in a certain subject; there's just too much to know. We're gonna need our cheat sheets.

"Philosophers since Plato have been saying that knowledge is actually a special kind of belief. It must be true, first of all, and it must also be justified, or have good reasons or evidence to support it." The quote says knowledge must be "true", but that creates problems in many fields where something that is believed to be true is actually false. Any day some discovery could be made which disproves a widely believed fact. This is especially possible in science, where, throughout history, there have been discoveries like this which have toppled hundreds of years of science. The same could happen with our fundamental scientific beliefs. Does that mean they are not "knowledge"?

"For all that, knowledge is, I'm afraid, not getting much easier. To be quite sure of an answer still requires comparing multiple sources, critical thinking, sometimes a knowledge of statistics and mathematics, and a careful attention to detail when it comes to understanding texts." I disagree that it is harder to find needed data. You just need to know the best place for finding the need information. for the previously mentioned scenario of needing to find the population of France, it would very easy to go to the CIA world fact book. this is a very reliable resource because it is a government service given to the public. "In short, we are reading reams of content written by amateurs, without the benefit of editors, which means we must as it were be our own editors. But many of us, I'm afraid, do not seem to be prepared for the job." this is quite a hyperbole because most of the true scientific information is written by professionals who know what they are talking about. The main things that are written by random Joes are blogs and other needless information. The reason that we are reading "reams of content" by amatuers is that the way the school systems are structured there is very little specialization. When back in the 1800s and earlier a boy would go and become an apprentice at the age of 9 or 10 and he becomes very educated in that one subject and leaves the other knowledge to others.

"Now, the Internet is a different sort of knowledge source. The Internet is very different, importantly different, from both face-to-face conversation and from the traditional media. Let's talk about that. The Internet has been called, again, a giant conversation. But it's a very unusual conversation, if so. For one thing, it's not a face-to-face conversation." The internet is an extremely different source of information than getting information from talking to someone face to face. When one is talking to another, one could easily see if they are joking, if they are possibly lying or if they are telling the truth. This gives us, the listener, more confidence of knowing or understanding the information or not. When we look up information on the internet, we cannot see if the internet is stating the truth or not. We cannot read it emotions. When one hears something, they become more aware of the information, but when we read information, we usually skim through and its harder for us to take it more seriously. This why it is better to get information from another person, if it's true or not, than read it on the internet.

"It's a very old observation that the most ignorant people are usually full of opinions, while many of the most knowledgeable people are full of doubt." Though a bit backwards, the truth in this quote is not easily ignored. Somehow, ignorance is almost always synonymous with being outspoken. Those who are ignorant are ignorant of their own ignorance, and, therefore, think that their opinions are the ones that need to be heard. Knowledgeable people, however, know that there is no true fact; there is only theory. They know that this is how we learn - by constantly doubting what we know. Because they are so full of doubt at their own knowledge, they do not profess them as an ignorant person would. "Easy information devalues hard knowledge." The author continues to say that the easy information on the internet is at fault for the devaluation of knowledge, but the internet is not the first to do so. We have been in a constant war with information vs. knowledge. In schools, students that take tests well are praised for being smart, but, in all reality, they may as well just be good at taking tests. This "knowledge" cannot be carried into the real world. Since the very creation of testing in school, we have valued information storage and testing skills over real knowledge and skills. The internet is certainly not to blame for this very old phenomenon.

"For all that, knowledge is, I'm afraid, not getting much easier...In short, knowledge still requires hard thought." I believe that knowledge will never get easier. Technology does give us an advantage into better understanding what knowledge is, but we will never fully understand what it truly is. Even with all the technology in the world "Knowledge still requires hard thought." Knowledge is meant to be someone that perplexes the human mind and makes you think. "The Internet is less a publishing operation than a giant conversation." It's like everyone is their own boss. There is no one there to watch over you and see everything that you type. They can't edit it before you publish it. What you write is what you write. This is both an advantage and disadvantage. It's an advantage because it means people can write whatever they want to. There is no limit and they can speak their mind, however it is also bad because most people don't think before they do things and that means that they could publish something that they would regret.

"Easy information devalues hard knowledge." This statement is flawed. I believe that just because information might be easy to obtain, it doesn't mean that your knowledge of the subject is any less significant. I feel that it doesn't matter where or how you get the information, but more of whether or not you're able to retain it. Because of the internet, it's so easy to gather new information to boost your knowledge, and I found myself disagreeing with a lot of what Larry Sanger had to say, however, when he said the statement listed above, that's when it really struck me hard. I think the internet does not lower your knowledge levels, but instead helps boost it. It's totally possible for people to learn just from the internet, instead of having to go to school. Yeah it might be more difficult, but it's still doable. I do understand that knowledge and information are two very different things, but knowledge can grow off of the information that you discover. Information is the root of all knowledge.

"information is easy, knowledge is difficult" This is a quote from the reading and also one of the main ideas that is discussed and explored in the passage. It is very truthful and also very easy for me to analyse as I fully agree with it. This quote caused me to think about the difference between information and knowledge and allowed me to question, to what extent are they different? In my opinion information is easy as it is indeed very easy to find and the take in, especially in this age of the internet where answers can be found by the push of a button. Although this information can be given and pertained, this doesn't necessarily mean that a person takes it in as knowledge. I think that information is only knowledge after it is fully understood and the person is able to apply the information in a number of ways with an in depth understanding of the subject( or whatever the form of the information may be ). That is why knowledge can be refered to as 'difficult', as it takes some sort of hard thought to understand the information that is given to turn it into something the person knows and understands thoroughly. This is when it can become knowledge. The author even says himself "knowledge still requires hard thought". "The Internet is making this old and difficult problem even worse. If we had an abundance of information in, say, the 1970's, the Internet has created a superabundance of information today." I partially disagree with this quote as i do not feel that the internet is making the issue of information worse. In my opinion, i think that it is essentially making the abundance of it better; by organization and computation of this information. Yes, i do agree to note that we have a superabundance of information today, but who says this is necessarily a bad thing? The information has made it substantially easier to access anything that you want, whenever you want, which is very helpful and as far as i can see, in no way creating a problem. It has become a

"First, we can make a role for experts in Internet communities. Of course, make the role so that does not conflict with what makes the community work. Don't simply put all the reins of authority in the hands of your experts; doing that would ensure that the project remains a project by and for experts, and of relatively little broader impact. But give them the authority to approve content..." (paragraph 31) i dont know about what you think but it kind of whispers "Big-brother is watching" to me. with this guy being a professional at telling me things like knowing is not knowing and friends are enemies, i feel like they might just start instituting mini-pax, and mini-plenty centers over the internet. and i would not be able to break free. solution number one in his two solutions of plans seems a bit strange. but thats just me. and maybe George Orwell too. "In short, we get knowledge either directly from other people, or indirectly, through various media." would he rather we gain knowledge from non media that is not a person other than ourselves directly? i fail to see the practicality in this guy's ideas and images of what we have become, and how we could improve. because last time i checked my 80% + daily fill of knowledge and my 40%+ lifetime memory of knowledge has been given to me by school, friends or family. i don't know if he is saying that is wrong or if he insinuates that i really mean tv and computer instead of school and family but im not sure he got it right.

"It's a very old observation that the most ignorant people are usually full of opinions, while many of the most knowledgeable people are full of doubt." I agree with this because you see it every day. Some people can think they are extremely smart in a subject and become very arrogant about it. They will keep saying the information over and over again to try and get more followers but in reality they are only putting people off; especially if they go out and send 15 billion emails or AD's to everyone. They also do not follow all of the facts, they only tell you the good to try and get people to join them. Sometimes they do not even follow the true facts; they shove in their own opinions and will not listen to the voice of another. For example, the political parties, Democrats and Republicans, neither party is willing to listen to the other people's opinions. They believe that their opinion is the only correct opinion. While the people with real knowledge doubt their knowledge because the arrogant people keep shoving their opinions down their throats. " I fear that the Internet has already greatly weakened our sense of what is distinctive about knowledge, and why it is worth seeking." When reading this quote out of the article it actually surprised me that I agreed with the statement. In so many ways the internet has weakened our senses of knowledge. We do not fully consume the researcher that we find; we just use the information and just toss it out of our mind when we finish with it. With the internet as a huge search engine now we do not understand why we have to do the research. We have become so lazy that if we went to a library and had to use encyclopedias we would still not know what to do.Also when I read this it made me question myself: Do I actually understand and process the research I find or do I simply take it in and then let it go?

"In short, we are reading reams of content written by amateurs, without the benefit of editors, which means we must as it were be our own editors. But many of us, I'm afraid, do not seem to be prepared for the job." I disagree with this. I feel that we are too dependent on "experts" and what we think is "reliable" information so we completely skip the editing process and just believe what they say to be true. With all the information there is online, I feel it stimulates our brain more to pick and choose our reliable data and to edit the not so reliable data. When editing the looser articles and information into your own words, you're doing exactly that; using your own words, instead of the words from "experts" "My worry is that the superabundance of information is devaluing knowledge." I disagree. I feel that just because there is a mass amount of information on the internet, it does not devalue knowledge. I feel that it doesn't matter where or how you get the information, but more of how you're able to retain it and what you take away from it. Even false information are stepping stones to being knowledgeable about true information. If you read an article saying how pears lead to kidney failure, then realizing and knowing that eating pears don't lead to kidney failure is still knowledge

"information is easy, knowledge is difficult" This quote was portrayed in the title and is extremely interesting because getting information is easy now days. We have easy access to the internet, books, and many resources, but knowledge is the difficult thing to master. To receive a book is easy but to understand the book is difficult. Luckily there are teachers and professionals to teach others knowledge, but it is still extremely hard with mentors and teachers. This quote stresses how there is a difference between containing information from resources like article and booklets and actually having knowledge about the topic like understanding what's going on and how it works and why it does the things it does. "I fear that the Internet has already greatly weakened our sense of what is distinctive about knowledge," I agree with the statement because I feel that sometimes people abuse the internet and it underestimate its capabilities and what one can learn and contain knowledge from. I feel that people always look for the easy way out and it is extremely simple to just get information from the internet rather than understanding the material which is why the internet is kind of in a way abused.

"In fact, on many online knowledge websites, we often have no names, pictures, or any information at all, about the people that we converse or work with online." I think this is a bit irrelevant to be honest. I mean, at school, we dont know the teachers on the first days of school, but we still trust that everything they know and are sharing with us is correct? Or books, yes we know the name of the author of a book, and if we are lucky, the back flap of the book has a paragraph about the author, but we have no connection what so ever with them! These examples are really no different than the internet which is why I think this opinion does not coincide with mine. "information is easy, knowledge is difficult" So after I read this article, I decided to read through this feed of comments on quotes and the one above mine (haelee's) really hit me. She makes such a valid point about how it is so easy to get information these days, whether it be from the internet, people or books, but knowledge is not the same. Then again, what is the difference between information and knowledge. Some would argue that they are interchangeable.

"The point is that most of the stuff that you typically find on the Internet is pretty lightweight." This is not true. Often on the internet I have found scientific journals and even free books online! In fact I have found over 1,250 pages of rescores from government websites and University papers online for my EE. The internet has loads of information, granted it does have pointless web sites such as MEME BASE and Facebook. But the internet has lots of good information and knowledge that is accessible to everyone everywhere. I think that as the internet gets older and its full potential is reached than we will see even heaver weight things. For example the Library of Congress is planning and in the progress of digitizing all of its books for use on the internet. I feel like the author of this article didn't really think about what they were saying before they said it. There is no basis for his argument, you can now buy books on the internet. How can we make search engines smarter to be able to tell if we want a lot of information or not? "To passively absorb information from the Internet, without caring about whether we have good reasons for what we believe, is really to roll the dice" I don't think that is it a role of the dice. I mean maybe if you believe everything you see or hear about on the internet but if you are careful and listen to everything that is said. You just have to be careful about how you interpret the data that you collect from online. The data could be presented you to in a negative light and that would make the subject seem bad! Others may paint a bad thing in good light so it looks good. You just have to be careful of everything you see and hear on the internet. How can we teach children about the dangers but also the advantages of the internet?

"Information is easy, knowledge is difficult." It seems that this is a popular quote! When we are given information in school, it is easy to retain and repeat. But when we string information to create concepts and events and the information is given depth, it becomes knowledge. And this knowledge is what we find difficult to comprehend and explain. When we are asked to connect these concepts, it becomes even more difficult. Applying the knowledge is also very difficult. I think one reason why knowledge is so difficult is because in school, people aren't gaining knowledge, just information. They don't know how to make connections with information and form ideas and concepts. Being able to regurgitate facts isn't knowing, despite what people may think otherwise. "On a certain utopian view, no one should be held up as an expert, and no one should be dismissed as a crackpot. All views, from all people, about all subjects, should be considered with equal respect." AMEN BROTHER! Just because someone is put into a category or is labeled, does NOT mean that they do not know anything outside of that category/label. Also, just because someone may be considered an expert does not mean that they're word is final. These labels are misleading. I know a few people who some may write off and overlook because they have a negative label. Yet they are extremely bright, and some of the most insightful people that I know! Dismissing or exalting someone based on a label is no different than judging someone based on a stereotype.

"Information is easy, knowledge is difficult." While beginning the reading, this quote really popped out at me making my mind flare up with thoughts. I want to say that i totally agree with this quote because information is just memory but knowledge is way more. When a teacher gives you a test on just information, all you have to do is use your memory even if you don't understand it completely. Knowledge is something that you must understand because when you have knowledge in a field, you can apply your self in many different ways. Knowledge is gained from doing where as information is gained from listening or reading. All and all i totally agree with this quote!

"My worry is that the superabundance of information is devaluing knowledge." The first thing that i want to point out is that i do not agree with this quote. I know that there is a vast amount of information on the internet but i do not believe that devalues it. Everyone retains and understands information differently so i believe that how you retain the info is how valuable it is. Just because there is a vast amount of information doesn't mean that our information is not as valuable. All information is valuable to some extent but its how you use it that really shows how valuable that information is.

"Google is a veritable oracle of truth. The problem is recognizing truth, and distinguishing it from falsehood. The ocean of information online contains a huge amount of truth. The difficulty comes in knowing when you've got it." I agree with this. So many people go on Google and expect and rely on it to be correct simply because it comes up. Not everything on Google is the truth. Though, its very hard to weed through the truth and false on Google. Near impossible, actually. So, how can we only have truth on a website like Google? Its hard to know, and sometimes we just have to use our better judgment to pull out the truth that's hidden within the rest of the made up lies that can be found on the internet.

"Google, by the way, was responsible for two thirds of those searches." I read over some peoples posts to get other perspectives and Kelly K wrote something pretty amazing. She wrote the question "What if google never existed?" and "What would the world be like without google?" I can't imagine the world without Google. I use Google everyday. How would I research or find things. So many me, like myself, rely on Google. Google helps me find information about anything and everything. I can't even picture life without Google. "Information is easy, knowledge is difficult." I agree with this quote. Finding information and getting information is easy. You can research it or be taught it. But keeping that information and knowing it is hard. To have that information is harder than most people think. How do you keep knowledge? How does your brain store so much? We know so much! How do we keep that all in our brain? Does our brain ever stop taking in knowledge? We live for around 80-90 years. So will there be a point where you can't learn anymore cause your brain is stored up? "Well, I think many of us would actually trust an anonymous person more than we would trust our more eccentric acquaintances." That's so true! We get our knowledge off places like the internet and we just trust that it is reliable. Why do we trust the information? Who taught us to trust it? Why do we trust it? This question blows my mind! I have been getting information off the internet for so long. I never thought that maybe some of that information could be false or unreliable. That never would question my mind. I knew not always to trust websites like Wikipedia but why do we all trust the internet?

"It's a very old observation that the most ignorant people are usually full of opinions, while many of the most knowledgeable people are full of doubt." I fully agree with this! Ignorant people always have opinions and stuff to say. But i never thought about that knowledgeable people are full of doubt. The knowledgeable will question things. Have doubt in things because it isn't realistic. Even thought they know so much they doubt it. Why do they doubt things?

"Google is a veritable oracle of truth. The problem is recognizing truth, and distinguishing it from falsehood. The ocean of information online contains a huge amount of truth. The difficulty comes in knowing when you've got it." I agree with this in the fact that it is hard to find the truth in google because of the excess of information but having an excess of knowledge is good because having this much information lets us be able to do things like being able to learn from our mistakes , it can provide new things for the future and branch off of new things once thought as excess and unnecessary.I believe that the sharing of knowledge has, made the world more innovative as a whole, and also created a sense of community among the internet peoples from all different nationalities. "My worry is that the superabundance of information is devaluing knowledge." I disagree with this statement because i don't like how this author is insinuating that this excess of knowledge is a bad thing because i think that the bad effects of having excess information like it being harder to find what we need and finding the truth. Does not compare to the good of having this much information like being able to learn from our mistakes , it can provide new things for the future and branch off of new things once thought as excess and unnecessary.I believe that the sharing of knowledge has, made the world more innovative as a whole, and also created a sense of community among the internet peoples from all different nationalities.

" People who care very much about getting their facts right generally consult authoritative sources; they don't usually get their knowledge from casual conversation with friends and relatives." I disagree with this statement because even if you need to get your facts straight does not mean you know everything that ever was or will be. They can still get knowledge from casual conversations and they can always check up on their facts later. "Of course, we are able to spot really daft stuff no matter who it comes from. " I disagree with this statement too, there are tons of people who totally believe the really daft stuff on the internet. One of the things we are always told is don't believe everything you read. Someone has to believe it if it is being told. Never underestimate the power of stupidity.

For all that, knowledge is, I'm afraid, not getting much easier. To be quite sure of an answer still requires comparing multiple sources, critical thinking, sometimes a knowledge of statistics and mathematics, and a careful attention to detail when it comes to understanding texts. In short, knowledge still requires hard thought. Even though this should be true, it isn't. With today's millennial, if something is found once, we tend to be quite sure of it. For instance, when people heard that Kony 2012 was a scam, people just believed it and never did any further research. People thought that about 37% of donations going to direct help was bad. Meanwhile, huge organizations such as Susan G. Komen for Breast Cancer only donate about 30% to direct help. Also, IC spends almost 17% on overhead,but the WWF spends somewhere from 20-30% on overhead. Lastly, people complain about the CEO getting $90,000/yr when many major heads get >$500K/yr.

For example, let's suppose I read something for the first time on some random blog, such as that Heath Ledger died. Suppose I just uncritically believe this. Well, even if it's true, I don't know that it is true, because random blogs make up stuff all the time. A blog saying something really isn't a good enough reason to believe it. But if I then read the news in a few other, more credible sources, then my belief becomes much better justified, and then I can be said to know. I just have one question. How many sources does one need to go to to officially call it knowledge?

"My worry is that the superabundance of information is devaluing knowledge" I completely disagree with this quote. I don't understand how Larry Sanger could say this about knowledge. Wouldn't it make sense to say that the more information that we surround ourselves with, the more knowledge we will be able to obtain. Isn't that why teachers and parents always tell children to read as much books as possible, that way we can try to be as intelligent as possible. "Google, by the way, was responsible for two thirds of those searches."' I believe this quote because i use google everyday. It is the main website that i use to search for any information that i need for my life. I wouldn't know what to do if google never existed. And i am happy to say that i am a part of those two thirds people because i think that google is an amazing website to use; it never lets me down.

"In short, knowledge still requires hard thought. Sure, technology is a great time-saver in various ways; it has certainly made research easier, and it will become only more so. But the actual mental work that results in knowledge of a topic cannot be made much easier, simply because no one else can do your thinking for you." The internet has made access to information very easy. Almost everything is now has a digital copy on the web. Information and facts are easy to find but knowledge and learning is not easy. No one can learn for you are know your thoughts and what you're thinking. If more information gets put on the internet, will knowledge lose its value because the information is so accessible? "Knowledge matters, and as wonderful a tool for knowledge as the Internet can be, it can also devalue knowledge." Some information is not true information and facts. How do we know what information is true or not? How can we have all this information and very little knowledge processed from the existing infromation?

"Now, the Internet is a different sort of knowledge source. The Internet is very different, importantly different, from both face-to-face conversation and from the traditional media" I agree with this statement because like the article stated the Internet is like a conversation of knowledge being passed from one to another but It's a conversation where someone would be a information source and anyone who would want to know that certain information would start a conversation with the source. This shows that everything we do now a days is a short cut and we don't have to do the hard work like back then. I don't think this is a good thing because certain experience is not gained from this but I don't think it's a bad thing either because good experience is also added. Why is it that we naturally resort to non social, Non 1 on 1, over the Internet interact action? Is it nature or nurture that that make us move more towards shortcuts through modern technology?

"Google is a veritable oracle of truth. The problem is recognizing truth, and distinguishing it from falsehood." -I agree, Google has a lot of very good information, but if you don't have any background knowledge on the topic you are researching on this search engine, it is likely that you will find bad information. I feel like the only information you don't have to distinguish or be skeptical of these days is in books. People have been focusing on putting information online so much, that there are hardly anyone putting information into books. Partly because anyone can put anything on the internet. Books are much harder to get out to the public. Information put into books to make sure if its reliable or not before allowing it to be published. "Well, I think many of us would actually trust an anonymous person more than we would trust our more eccentric acquaintances." -I think the fact of just having an idea of how reliable some of our acquaintances are really helps us decipher if we can really trust them. People always assume that most everyone is trustable and since you can't actually see or directly talk to this person one of this generation would assume that 'since it's on the internet, its true!" It's very sad, but true. And I hate to say, but I've been one of these people.

"My worry is that the superabundance of information is devaluing knowledge." I agree with this whole heartedly. When one can simply Google the answer to a question, why does one need to learn it? With the answer to any question as at the tip of our fingers, knowledge seems less valuable than it did just 20 years ago. "Before the Internet, we were already awash in information." So true. The only difference between now and then is that now we have all the tip of our fingers. Back then you had to search for the answer, and finding it was worthwhile. Why do we get rid of original copies (books) when typically first editions are important? What happens to the world when everything is online? What if the systems crashed? At least with books, they don't just crash. They last many years.

"But without knowing who a person is, we are operating without a basic bit of information that we are used to having, in evaluating what people tell us face-to-face." A lot of information that we get when we talk to people face-to-face is lost when we talk to people over the internet. What are these social cues, anyway? How can we adapt them for the internet? People have adapted to expressing themselves in emails and chats by using emoticons to represent their facial expressions. But a lot of people misrepresent themselves on the web. Even with a little thing like emoticons-people overuse them-typing smiley faces left and right, even when they aren't smiling. On websites where the point is to display personal information-like Facebook-people filter it, to put just the good stuff. How ethical is this filtering? How important is it for us to know who are sources are, what they are like as people? How important is privacy on the internet? Can you be credible without revealing a lot about yourself? "First, we can make a role for experts in Internet communities." A lot of things on the internet-people and products included-can seem a lot cooler than they are in real life. This is both an advantage and a disadvantage. It gives everyone a level playing field for expressing their ideas and it gives everyone a level playing field for expressing their ideas. I think there is a reason we have experts. But when is it right to label someone as an expert? And how much more should we value the opinion of experts over those of others? Could making a place for experts allow people to think less critically about the information they are receiving? Would making a place for experts encourage other users to be more professional, to check their facts?

"But the actual mental work that results in knowledge of a topic cannot be made much easier, simply because no one else can do your thinking for you. So while information becomes nearly instantaneous and dead simple, knowledge is looking like a doddering old uncle." Making the mental work easier really isn't the point. The internet is only supposed to make information acquisition "nearly instantaneous and dead simple". We shouldn't expect something from the internet, or from anything, that it was never meant to supply in the first place. I am not quite sure what to make of the rest, because, frankly, who says "doddering"? I am going to assume that he is trying to say that knowledge now looks old, slow, boring, and sometimes embarrassing, depending on the uncle, compared to the mindless, blazing speed of information acquisition on the internet. However, I don't think that this is going to make a big change in the number of people who take the time to learn, and acquire knowledge, like the doddering old uncle. There will always be those who thrive on learning and discovering. There will also always be those who like taking shortcuts. Knowledge isn't going to be killed off by the internet. It will only benefit knowledge by making it easier for those who desire knowledge to gain it. "In short, we are reading reams of content written by amateurs, without the benefit of editors, which means we must as it were be our own editors. But many of us, I'm afraid, do not seem to be prepared for the job. In my own long experience interacting with Internet users, I find heaps of skepticism and little respect for what others write, regardless of whether it is edited or not." This I agree with. It is really easy to slander something, someone, or an idea on the internet with little, or no, respect or proof. The reverse is also true, though less affective, because it is always easier to destroy something than it is to build it. It is also incredibly easy to fru

Moist is definiately one of the worst words that we have. I find it interesting that we generally find that monosyllable words more detesting than longer multisyllable words. However, I do not think sword is a bad word. Maybe I think this because I cannot disconnect the meaning of the word. To me, a sword represents nobility, honor, and courage, all of which are positive.

It is very interesting how people dislike certain words just by the way they sound. I know I do it a lot where I will avoid using it or kind of cringe when people say it especially the word moist. I also feel the word moist is highly disliked because of the meaning as well for example when one is walking outside and it lightly starts to rain their clothing could be describes as moist which is a horrible feeling.

This is a topic that I've actually talked about with my sister several times and I always laugh at how she freaks out in response to certain words. I don't really get bothered by much but she absolutely hates the words moist and puss not for their definitions but for the way that they sound. I can't think of any right now on the spot but I feel like typically the words that make me cringe are repulsive due to their definition rather than sound. I don't really like words that end in -shy like mushy or gushy because they just sound gross to me.

The article suggests that there are some words that we dislike only because of what they sound like. But can we completely take away the meaning of the word without being influenced by it? It seems unlikely. We consciously or unconsciously connect a sequence of sounds to some image in our head. Even the article itself suggests that we dont like the word 'moist' because we associate it to a sexual situation. Maybe, then, we could ask a foreign person what she thinks of the word 'moist' without knowing its meaning? But still, she could relate it to another sequence of sounds that means something else in her language. We are biased by what we know already. There's nothing wrong with it; but we are.

Whoa Whoa whoa, whats with all the hate for the word moist. I really don't understand why we hate certain words. I guess i get their reasoning for what the words mean and what they define, but it still weird. Why do we not like words? its completely counter productive for a species to hate the expansion of their own language. well anyways that was my rant. If you haven't guessed by now i dont really have any affiliations with any words, except moist. I like the word moist.

In this article it discusses the effect that some words have on people and the distaste that they have. It discusses how some words when said by people make them feel uncomfortable. In the article it discusses how the word moist has a negative affects on people because it feels weird to say and has an uncomfortable sound. For me personally, I don't personally get too grossed out by words very often but there are certain ones that do make me cringe. Some of these words include ooze and slush. I positively can't stand those words. For me I personally find it really interesting how certain words affect certain people. My question that I have is whether or not we could train ourselves to cringe to certain words or be okay with certain words? Also I want to know whether certain words would have an affect on us in the same gross way even if we did not know the definition of them.

It seems to me that many of these words do have meanings we associate with them that make them so repulsive. The article suggests that a lot of these words, "moist" included, have sexual connotations. Phlegm, mucus, and pus are all words with gross meanings. Other words, though it may not be immediately obvious, might have similar sounds to words with gross or sexual meanings, or we might associate them with some unpleasant experience in our past. This word aversion hypothesis should be tested on people who have never heard the word before/have no prior knowledge of its meaning. I think in Spanish the word "crotch" is actually onomatopoeia for a crunching sound so they probably do not have an aversion to the word.

I think it is weird that we hate words by their sounds. I think that I personally tend to hate words because of their definition, or by the way I perceive it. Honestly when I hear the word moist, I don't hate it, I actually think of moist brownies, which are yummy!! Of course its just my opinion, but i think my point I am trying to get out of here is that I don't think people just hate words because of their sounds, there are also other factors like past experiences/memories and past contexts in which the words were used in

In the article, when he mentioned that people hate words because of their sight, it made me start thinking about words that I don't like to see when reading. I realized that one thing I dislike the look of in a word is when there are multiple tittles (the dots above Is and Js) in a row. It looks very foreign and unnatural to me. For example, "jiggle". But, the multiple tittles isn't "jiggle"'s biggest problem.

I agree with "The [words] evoke nausea and disgust rather than, say, annoyance or moral outrage. And the disgust response is triggered because the word evokes a highly specific and somewhat unusual association with imagery or a scenario that people would typically find disgusting-but don't typically associate with the word." There are many words that just look bad. Porcupine would be one of these words that just look bad.

This article discusses the effect that some words have on people and the distaste that they have towards these certain words. Subconsciously, we as individuals are constantly visualizing images while we have conversations and with each word automatically popping and image into our heads. Some words have negative images connected with them, and as a result could cause one to feel distaste or evoke nausea. For example, the word "vomit" is harsh sounding and automatically puts the image of barf into our minds. Some words when typed seem to look unappealing because of how the letters look together. For example the word "Phlegm" uses letters that just look bad together. As a result, the word phlegm is looked at as unappealing and creepy. There are also negative connotations linked to the word phlegm because of the automatic mental images your mind conjures up.

"Early in the story, there is a brief passage in which the narrator, describing a moment of postcoital amorousness, says, "Everything seemed moist, permeable, sayable."" I really am in a predicament with this article. I agree and disagree at the same time. I can imagine how we dislike a word, but hating a word is a whole different meaning. When you hate a word, to me, you hate the meaning and definition behind it. When you dislike a word, it seems more so that you dislike the sound of the word and the sayablility of the word. So I dont think its right to hate on the word, for you are hating on the definition behind it. So i feel we should use a less INTENSE word like hate to criticize the sayability of the word. "Being grossed out by the word moist is not beyond comprehension. It's squishy-seeming, and, to some, specifically evocative of genital regions and undergarments." This passage mentions its mainly the SOUND, not the word or definition itself, Which brings clarity to the article.

I disagree with the premise of this article, which appears to be that some sounds are inherently distasteful. They're distasteful because they remind us of other words. As someone enrolled in french I don't hate certain words because they just sound wrong, I hate them because they're hard to say. My point being that the context of the word is what makes us shudder or cringe. The context for this cringe may not be so obvious. The example this article often cited was "moist", which stand alone the sound moy-st does not appear to be offensive. In a dirty or uncomfortable context it certainly creates an interesting reaction. As a whole I feel like this article is looking into something that isn't all there, but maybe I am just not personally afflicted with 'word aversion'.

i don't really agree with this article, i don't hate or love any words based just on the way they sound. i like or dislike words based on the meaning. words with sexual connotations we think sound gross but is that because we know the meaning of the word or because the word its self sounds bad. we could just be rating words on how they sound based on their meaning. but one word i do hate more than anything though is Prius something about it gets on my nerves

The premise of this article was a discussion on the idea of word aversion. "Word aversion is marked by strong reactions triggered by the sound, sight, and sometimes even the thought of certain words." This quote was quite thought provoking as it made me really wonder - what is it that makes a word unpleasant? Is it in fact the sound of the word (how it sounds when it it said), the sight of the word (its formation, how the letters look together), the thought of a certain word (the possibly unpleasant images that it brings to mind), or in fact even a combination? My belief is that in most cases, word aversions can be blamed on the human subconscious and the way in which, whether we like it or not, words are connected to certain images. When reviewing many common word aversions, i really couldn't help but notice that the most common ones are usually those to do with bottily fluids such as mucus, pimple, ooze, scab, pus, phlegm and even moist. This is a point also mentioned within the article.- "Many hated words refer to "slimy things, or gross things, or names for garments worn in potentially sexual areas." This would explain why certain word aversions create feelings of disgust, because when the word is heard, it can subconsciously provoke unpleasant images and experiences connected to that word.

I personally dont dislike the word moist. People find words gross because of two things and that if it has a bad connotation to it and that makes us connect it to a bad or a gross words either intentionally or subconsciously. The other reason that i think people think some words are nice and others are bad because of the way it sounds. For example words that roll off the toungue easily will ussualy sound niceer than odd sounding words and when there is a mixture of this leaning towards a bad side or a good side that word will come off as such.

In our society, not only as a national society, but as an international one, words are powerful. Our education systems thrive on words, whether it be the obligatory second language all students are now required to take, or punishment of the improper use of deemed "inappropriate" words, they are none the less, powerful. Some words are titled as beautiful, for me, some of these pretty words are amour, effervescent, enticing, arrivederci, and capricious, however, the list goes on. Now lets take a moment to find some commonalities of these words. All but one of the words begin with a vowel, meaning that the first sound has a softer pronunciation. Two of the five words are from the French and Italian vocabulary. And all of them are two or more syllables. They seem to roll off of the tongue effortlessly. Moist. One of most unappreciated and unliked words in the English dictionary begins with a consonant, is a single syllable, and has a hard ending. So it is possible that the construction of a word, which directly affects the sound of it, plays a huge role on how we categorize pretty and ugly words.

With words that have sexual connotations you never really know what is going on with the word. You really don't think of the word very much (at least for me) you picture it instead. But for pretty words you also picture them so maybe it isn't about the meaning about the word, it is more about the soundings of the words, the harsh sounds or "fuck" and "crotch" and the smooth sounds of "blue" and "leaves" give you a picture. But when it comes to inappropriate words the harsh sounds really turn off the listener.

I think that people dislike words because of the definition and the connotations that they get from hearing it. Not from the sound that they make when we say it out loud. For me, it was kind of difficult to come up with words that i like and dislike because of their meanings. So what i am trying to say is that the words sound is not the only thing that can make us like or dislike it; but it depends on our experiences and the definition of the word itself.

The reason I think that people dislike words is because they usually have an image correlation in their head that they don't particularly like, or because they have a experience that has given a bad connotation to a word this. This correlation people have with words can be intentionally or subconsciously. Because of this people usually choose words that they like or dislike not based on the sound of it but from the image and experience correlation coming from the definition of that word and their experience with it. that is why i don't really agree with this article, i don't hate or love any words based just on the way they sound.

I personal don't usually get offended by "harsh" or mean words. I feel that people dislike them because of the definition that they are given or an image that goes with the word. Also the sound of the words can be a reason too, some bad words are really bad sounding and are not good to hear. There are many words that i like and most of them are because of the meaning that they have, and there are some words that i just like to day because it is fun too or sounds cool to me.