dignan

Soup, what I'm asking here of you is simple. Please show me in a clear way how the passage you say supports your claim actually supports your claim.

Soup, I did read the whole thing. And I said earlier that I didn't think your claim was supported by your quote. Is it too hard to ask you to show clear support for your claim?

Soup, let's try and stay on this one topic of your claim in post #62 and your support for that claim. Here is your claim: "Books allow for deeper concentration, contemplation, and memorization than any other format." Then you posted a passage from The Shallows. Now staying within the context of what you said in post #62 can you please show me in clean, clear, and crisp examples of support for your claim: "Books allow for deeper concentration, contemplation, and memorization than any other format." A couple of simple and hopefully non controversial examples of what I'm asking of you are as follows: Example A Claim #1, Soup is a mortal Support #1, Soup is a man Support #2, All men are mortal Example B Claim #2, Soup is 6 feet tall Support #1, Soup is a man Support #2, All men are mortal Now both claim #1 and claim #2 can both be true claims. However, only claim #1 follows from both support #1 and #2, whereas claim #2 receives no support. Hopefully this question isn't asking too much and I think your answer will help me understand you more clearly. Again, please try and stay within the passage you quoted in post #62

"Claim: Books allow for deeper concentration, contemplation, and memorization than any other format. Warrant: The claim is evident through scientific research Support:..... here:" Seems like you could just use claim and support to get the point across. I think this claim you made is not supported by what you supplied. (please don't take that as an invitation to post even more long passages.) The passage you provided makes use of research by Gary Small, but that research does not support your claim. The findings by Small are that computer searches generate more activity in the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex. But I want to you pay attention to the way Small compares things: "The researchers found that when people search the Net they exhibit a very different pattern of brain activity than they do when they read book-like text." Here there's a clear distinction being made between searching the Net and reading book-like text. Then Small says: "The good news here is that Web surfing, because it engages so many brain functions, may help keep older people’s minds sharp." Again, so far, I don't see this as support for your claim: Books allow for deeper concentration, contemplation, and memorization than any other format. I'm not done but it's time to go to work. I know at the end of the passage Carr makes the claim:" Try reading a book while doing a crossword puzzle; that’s the intellectual environment of the Internet" but I think he moves too fast here. There's nothing here to support that we are always doing these two things at once. Carr just asserts that. Now if you would have said: "Claim: Searching the Net and reading book-like text cause activity in different parts of the brain. Warrant: The claim is evident through scientific research Support:..... here:" Then I would think your claim would get stronger support by the passage you quoted.

ok "If you understand the points in those books, just give us the points. " I can definitely simplify those books into points. The question is why would I want do that? What value is there to breaking down a bunch of books in this thread when there is no real discussion here?" Seems to me like there is some discussion here. "You shouldn't say things like "it's been scientifically proven" to try and make a point." You're confusing warrants for a claim with support." I'm sort of used to using warrant in a particular way but recognize that people easily use it interchangeably with other words like justification. You're going to have to fill me in on how you use both those words for me to understand the point you're making here. "You shouldn't overstate your case, it makes it that much easier to falsify your claim, (e.g. post #48 "a hammer has only one use..." false, hammers have many uses including but not limited to: building, demolition, bottle opener, door stop etc." Valid point but not a great example of it. The list of uses you gave can be given to a number of things, including your skull, but we're talking about the hammer as a sophisticated tool and technology. The the single purpose of the hammer, which defines the hammer as a hammer and not your skull or a rock or whatever, is that a hammer can put nails into a wall." I disagree that "the single purpose of the hammer, which defines the hammer...is that a hammer can put nails into a wall". I think what actually defines a hammer is common purpose and not single purpose. Thinking about it this way is more inclusive to how we actually use a hammer and still allows for the distinction between a hammer, my skull and a rock. "This technology changed people's entire relationship to the world. It created a new kind of building, a new way to think about nature, a new career and role in society, a new culture with a different value for everything around it. We see this with every new technology including agriculture, animal husbandry, the printed word, and so on. THAT was the point i was making. The role of the hammer—and all technology—in shaping modern society cannot be overstated." I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Seems to me like you are overstating things here. "I completely disagree with this. We are talking about computer as a technology and a medium. We are attempting to weigh the benefits against the costs and one part of this is to compare the computer to other technologies, to see how technology changes the metaphors/abstract concepts of our society. Since we see the world through abstract concepts like eternity, religion, and god—also capitalism, individualism, liberty, fairness, etc—its important to see how each new technology changes the meaning and our relationship to these metaphors." You give a list of things (eternity, religion, and god—also capitalism, individualism, liberty, fairness) and call them metaphors, but are they all metaphors? "Since you're clearly interested in epistemology, at least in the context of religion." I am interested in epistemology but I didn't mean to give you the impression that it was only in the context of religion. One statement I noticed from you was "Researching on the internet may seem faster than researching in a library but the information you end up with when you use the internet is so inferior to book learning that its truly a waste of fucking time." and this is so blatantly incorrect that I wanted to comment in this thread. I let you know there is a ton of good information I find on the internet thru google. You asked me what kind and I gave you one example, but there are lots more we don't even need to bother getting into (meaning I've successfully searched for things many times over). "Since you're clearly interested in epistemology...you might also be interested in looking at technology as epistemology, and with every new technology the epistemology changes." I think I would be sure to never slip up here and to always keep distinction between how we actually "know" things internally vs. the way we come to find new things externally. That's sloppy but it's open to critique and revision. "I'm sorry, what context did I miss?" Really? The post before the post you quoted. "None of them directly answered that question. Just like a hazard warning on a cigarette box doesn't directly tell you to stop smoking." I know you aren't saying using computers directly causes cancer. So it's not just like a warning on cigarette label. In other words, you don't have to tell us what it's like you can just tell us what it is.

There actually is context to my quote above. As far as your question 'should we stop using computers?' I'm leaning towards not stopping. Can you answer my question? How many people you listed above come to the conclusion we should stop using computers?

Sage wisdom, Mr. "I’m just gonna assume you don’t know what you’re talking about." Funny but that's not what I said. Soup, how many of the people you listed above come to the conclusion we should stop using computers?

Soup, I wasn't trying to pick a fight with you. Here's a few things that I think may be helpful for you. If you want to make a point, just make the point. (re-read this 5 times) You shouldn't give out a list of books to read and think that we would understand you if only we would read books X, Y, and Z. If you understand the points in those books, just give us the points. You shouldn't say things like "it's been scientifically proven" to try and make a point. You shouldn't appeal to authority, (just because someone says something doesn't make it true). You shouldn't contradict yourself, (post #1 you say google has indexed .04% of the internet, post #37 you say google has indexed between 4-12%) You shouldn't overstate your case, it makes it that much easier to falsify your claim, (e.g. post #48 "a hammer has only one use..." false, hammers have many uses including but not limited to: building, demolition, bottle opener, door stop etc. This is just one simple example, but there are many like this you've made in this thread). You shouldn't stray off of your own topic, (this thread was about computer usage, no reason to bring in god, religion, eternity. Whether any of these are true or false they aren't on topic and they don't further your idea). When someone makes a point, try to understand their point before responding to it. There's more but I'm just going to stop for now. I'm sure I may come off as patronizing but that isn't my intention. I'm just trying to help you out. And I still have no idea if you're trolling or just don't know what you're talking about.

There are only two ways to understand your last post. 1) You don't know what you're talking about. 2) You know what you're talking about and are misusing words and ideas intentionally. In other words, trolling.

Mine was only a small disagreement to begin with. I'm not local. I didn't mention my city by name and I just used two other cities near you to show that they might be deficient for my specific wants. On another note, I have a good friend in Oakland and we were going to read that specific book they had in their library and get together to discuss it. However, it was always checked out when he tried to get it and that plan never happened. Google to the rescue, we emailed different papers back and forth, and read them all. Eventually when he came to town earlier this summer, we talked thru everything we read over beers in my backyard. Something we couldn't have done as easily without google. The internet is like any other tool, helpful or destructive largely based on the way in which the individual uses it.

::sorry if this response sucks, I wrote another one & tried to post it just to be told I wasn't logged in, dammit:: Soup, I'm afraid we're talking past each other. I'm not sure how you came to the idea that I was talking about hyperlinks. I'll take half the blame tho, since I'm sure I'm a horrible at communicating online. That said, very little of what you wrote actually interacted with my comment so I will just leave it alone and not try and follow you down any rabbit holes. But actually that is a nice meta-argument on why the internet sucks. I'm sure if we were talking about this in person we wouldn't have the same miscommunication. As far as your question to me about why I don't go to the library (In both of my previous two comments I briefly sketched why this is not a good option to me) and pick up a book about reformed epistemology and how there are a ton of them out there that would be easy for me just start reading. That's just false. I just searched my cities public library catalog and got zero hits on that subject. I then tried searching a popular author on that subject and also got zero hits. So, I searched SF's library for that author and got one hit for something he wrote, (Actually that book is on my short list of things to purchase from amazon, paper not digital). I then searched Oakland's public library and also only got one hit by him, (I already own and have read this book tho). If anything, your last comment seems to strengthen my idea that the internet and google are good tools for me to get relevant information I want in a convenient way.

For me google being a bunch of algorithms, never a brain is a non-starter. It does not matter to me that a computer is the tool for me to find particular items rather than use someone's physical brain. As far as some comprehension being lost when the printed material aren't in their full context is again a non-starter for me. I specifically mentioned journal articles in my original comment, so the context is completely there, (I guess it does help that I have interest in the topics I'm searching for and have some of the background information already). I'll try and give you an illustration of what I'm talking about and why I think google is an excellent tool. I'm interested (sometimes more, sometimes less) in Plantinga and his idea of Reformed Epistemology, Basic Beliefs and Warrant. So, on somewhat of a whim, I cruise PhilPapers.org looking for some information. I find a paper by Plantinga but unfortunately it's printed in Noûs, Vulume 15, Number 1, 1981. Something that I don't have access to when I'm sitting on my ass after dinner at home. But PhilPapers does link me to the cover page of the paper: Here I then use google to further search and find a PDF of his entire paper from the journal: Here I then use google find an Evan Fales (Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Volume 68, Issue 2, March 2004) repsonse: Here I yet again use google to find Plantinga's (Philosophy and Phenomenological Research Volume 75, Issue 3, November 2007) response to Fales: Here I find being able to view these papers as a PDF online helpful in another way as well. I can search the paper for specific wording extremely fast. Something I would not be able to do as well with a paper copy. And all of this was not only fast but free to me as well. I did not have to pay any subscription fee's. I do not have to store any books (which I do like to own) I can just save any relevant information for my purposes in a folder on my computer. I think this was a sufficient thumbnail to show how useful a tool I find google and the internet to be.

Minor quibble about using the internet for researching. There is a ton of good information that is very easily accessible to me at home on the internet that would just not be time effective for me to go search out in a library (or anyplace else). For me this information is not "so inferior to book learning that its truly a waste of fucking time." Because the papers I'm finding are in technical or academic journals written by authors who sometimes use these works as entire chapters later on in their books. It's very easy for me to quickly view these papers online and just see if the information contained in it will even be useful for me. The internet is an amazing time saver for me in this way. That said, I've never had a Facebook account and I did consider putting Instagram on my phone but resisted that since I know how much time I would waste on it.

Mike Davis' new one with narrowed trees.. ((sorry, don't know how to resize))

Little over three years now....R.I.P.!

taxman, sometimes floats get stuck. try tapping the bowls with the rubber handle of a screwdriver and see if that stops it. if that stops it or not, you still should clean those carbs. seeks, did you go to born free 4?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtCu34Tq94I

Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism Alvin Plantinga A must read for anyone interested in this topic especially since Plantinga is considered by many to be the most important philosopher of religion in the 20th century.

Changing the CT to TCI...

Yeah, i'm a month late. He's at Port City Tattoo now in Long Beach. http://www.portcitytattoo.com/

Alvin Plantinga & Dan Dennett (not a debate, presenter and commentator) on the compatibility of science and religion. (not thread specific but fitting none the less) http://www.brianauten.com/Apologetics/Plantinga-Dennett-Debate.mp3

stolen from charliebrownske's thread..

R.I.P. nace ricks mber harsh