Knowledge is power and so it tends to be
hoarded. Experts in any field rarely want
people to understand what they do, and
generally enjoy putting people down.
Thus if we say that the use of computers
is dominated by a priesthood, people who
spatter you with unintelligible answers and
seem unwilling to give you straight ones, it
is not that they are different in this respect
from any other profession.
For those of you who have come to know me, my project, and what I am advocating with it, it should come as no surprise to you that this paragraph stood out to me. As a knowledge-seeker and supporter of fellow knowledge-seekers, I want to believe that this statement is false. Or at least no longer valid in the fourty-something years since it’s been written. And I think I can support that it is an outdated idea, although the author does make some good points. I do believe that right now anyone motivated enough can find the knowledge they seek with the help of computers. However, as the author is quick to point out, this knowledge can be encoded in a secret language known only to the experts. In fact, the author states that his main motivation is to create a meaningful and not entirely boring piece of work for the sake of the laymen who can not break this code. That is something I appreciate. Let’s tie this back into me and my project (not because I am terribly self absorbed, but because I am fulfilling project requirements!) I think this so strongly relates back to what inspires me about Wikipedia, linksurfing, and the pursuit of knowledge. This priesthood that the author speaks of has disbanded and their power has gone to the atheists! Knowledge seekers can now get a crash-course in virtually any topic they could imagine, and some they can’t just by surfing the web. Experts (and admittedly plenty of NOT experts) share their knowledge with the world just for the sake of educating. This is such an exciting fact when you stop to think about it and I hope people take proper advantage of the opportunity.
It’s interesting how different two nuggets can be that come from the same original source, and how these different nuggets can lead to such different thoughts and topics of conversation. This difference became very apparent after reading Helena’s blog post
which discusses the humanity or lack thereof in robots. This line of inquiry started from the exact same place mine did, but because our research topics are so different we were both drawn to different portions of the reading.
This totally doesn’t relate to me or my nugget, but I am amused by this all the same. Contrary to my previous paragraph about how interesting I found it to diverge from one source, the next two blogs I read were basically the exact same posts! So I can now make the exact opposite post! Jeremy Watts and JawadBlog chose the exact same nugget, discussed it in similar terms, but have fairly dissimilar research topics. One is looking into technology and human consciousness, and the other about how social media has affected music, yet they both brought up similar points about the nugget in connection to their own topics. Does anyone else find this interesting? Because I find this fascinating.