| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Genetics in the Gut: Intestinal Microbes Could Drive Obesity and Other Health Issues | Main | Sunday Poem »

March 07, 2010

TIME TO START TAKING THE INTERNET SERIOUSLY

David Gelernter in Edge:

Gelernter300 1.  No moment in technology history has ever been more exciting or dangerous than now. The Internet is like a new computer running a flashy, exciting demo. We have been entranced by this demo for fifteen years. But now it is time to get to work, and make the Internet do what we want it to.

2. One symptom of current problems is the fundamental puzzle of the Internet. (Algebra and calculus have fundamental theorems; the Internet has a fundamental puzzle.)  If this is the information age, what are we so well-informed about? What do our children know that our parents didn't? (Yes they know how to work their computers, but that's easy compared to — say — driving a car.)  I'll return to this puzzle.

3. Here is a simpler puzzle, with an obvious solution. Wherever computers exist, nearly everyone who writes uses a word processor. The word processor is one of history's most successful inventions. Most people call it not just useful but indispensable. Granted that the word processor is indeed indispensable, what good has it done? We say we can't do without it; but if we had to give it up, what difference would it make? Have word processors improved the quality of modern writing? What has the indispensable word processor accomplished?

4. It has increased not the quality but the quantity of our writing — "our" meaning society's as a whole. The Internet for its part has increased not the quality but the quantity of the information we see. Increasing quantity is easier than improving quality. Instead of letting the Internet solve the easy problems, it's time we got it to solve the important ones.

More here.

Posted by Azra Raza at 06:53 AM | Permalink

Comments

If I could invent any one technology it would be a system like a spellchecker that points out flaws in logic and bad arguments.

Posted by: zach wilson | Mar 7, 2010 1:51:18 PM

David should take the internet seriously. After all, computer stuff is why they gave him tenure at Yale.

Posted by: fred lapides | Mar 7, 2010 2:24:57 PM

But Zach, who would write that program? Wouldn't it only detect the flaws that its creators acknowledged as flaws? And it would have to let slip some vastly inert propositions that were flawlessly logical, while disallowing poorly argued excellent points.

Posted by: Elatia Harris | Mar 7, 2010 2:41:32 PM

If it were not for the Unibomber, no one would have heard of David Gelernter. He has a closed mind in a field (computer science) where constant learning is critical. Rather than following the path of learning new things, Gelernter refuses to see the new and focuses on an imagined past. Why does anyone listen to him?

Posted by: Ian Kaplan | Mar 8, 2010 1:32:36 PM

can't. handle. stupid. normative. argument...

Posted by: ibn khaldun | Mar 8, 2010 1:34:11 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

3QD ADVERTISING

Find the best prices on Las Vegas Show Tickets at Best of Vegas and Orlando Theme Parks at Best of Orlando!

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Klausi on the defeated

Anjuli on Perceptions

gautam on The Human Peacock’s Ghastly Tail

VirtualMachine on What goes into making beautiful celestial images?

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

Namit on The search for a two-thousand-year-old city

Anjali Kelling on Adagio in Blues

Phil S. on KILL THE CAPS LOCK, And four other modest proposals for improving the contemporary computer keyboard

Adam on Canadian Insights on America’s Lunatic Fringe

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

whatev on Canadian Insights on America’s Lunatic Fringe

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

WJAbbe on Illuminating the history of medicine

Sara on Superbowl Spleen

Liam on The Human Peacock’s Ghastly Tail

Anand Manikutty on Adagio in Blues

Sagredo on How To Implode A Myth

Michael Harbour on The Emptiness of Pluralism

Kai Matthews on Superbowl Spleen

Albertan Atheist on Canadian Insights on America’s Lunatic Fringe

Kai Matthews on Adagio in Blues

Nick Smyth on The Emptiness of Pluralism

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed