October 18, 2005
Stairway to Heaven
I just got around to seeing Nicholas Carr's blog entry of a couple weeks ago, "The amorality of Web 2.0". It provides an interesting counter-point to the Web 2.0 love fest that has swept through the blog-world recently. I would offer a hearty Amen to the main point of his sermon, except that then I'd be adding to the echolalia (this is Nic's $5 word, don't feel bad if you click the link! :-).
There seemed to be two main points to his rant. 1) the web is not the path to "transcendence" and 2) trepidation at the likely triumph of Amateurs. I view these concepts as mutually exclusive. I agree with #1, but am not convinced that #2 is a potential problem. Let me explain.
It is clear that the balance of power is indeed shifting, yielding more influence to the individual, while wresting it from "the man" (read- MANagement, big media, etc). I am not as concerned about this phenomenon as Mr. Carr; Why?? ...because quite frequently even "professionals" are contributing to the collective body of knowledge through the megaphone that is their blog. I would conjecture that most serious journalists maintain a blog and with these outlets surfacing more and more there is a blur between professional and amateur; even "the man" is adjusting to remain relevant. In addition, the relatively new venue of blogging has yielded content from subject matter experts (SMEs) that the public previously never had access to: Business experts, Investment experts, Technology experts ^ 23rd power. Mr. Carr himself is a small piece of this puzzle contributing to the bit stream glimpses of an interesting perspective and more than a modicum of insight.
In fact not only am I not concerned about this, I am convinced that this path has accelerated not only the dissemination of information but general increase in accurate knowledge and understanding. Nevertheless, before we get worked up into a Web2.0 frenzy, it is important to realize that the web, with all its virtues and benefits, is not the Stairway to Heaven.
p.s. I also think his article was a bit harsh on Wikipedia. It is not perfect, but he was selective in the information that he quoted, and did not accurately reflect the effectiveness of Wikipedia as a resource.
Posted by harris at 11:24 PM | Comments (0) | TrackBack
September 08, 2005
The First and Great Question
Graham has a recent entry on "Intelligent Design". One thing that Graham does not address in his discussion of Intelligent Design/Evolution is the very beginning: Where did matter come from? and... How did that very first single cell organism come into existence to kick off the evolutionary process? I believe these questions need to be answered prior to attempting the distillation process of how complex organisms came into existence.
This is a tougher question to answer with science. Why? Because science deals with phenomena that can be observed or that can be reproduced. This is a problem. No human was alive to observe matter coming from nothing; nor did anyone see the birth of a simple organism. Furthermore, by applying the scientific method, these phenomena cannot be reproduced. Sure scientists have made unfathomable strides in understanding and manipulating the physical world; but they have never created anything "ex nihilo" or out of nothing. When you walk into a laboratory it is never an empty room... it is fill with exquisitely precise instruments and technology. When a scientist does something interesting in an empty room that will be news!
I too am a logical person, convicted by facts and hard science. However, in answering some of the most difficult questions in life, real science simply breaks down and we are left with simply our reason. Did matter come from nothing? and did life come from that matter? or did some Being with superior intellect and power create the world and all that is in it? That is the most basic question of life, and left with that question, I believe in a Creator.
Now we can talk about the complexity of the universe! uh... just not right now. :-)
Posted by harris at 11:57 PM | Comments (2) | TrackBack