In our last class before Thanksgiving break, Daniel had us debate the arguments between Dreyfus and Clark. Since we ran out of time, we did not get a chance to get to Daniel’s last point in the debate which was about Wikipedia and who would argue for or against it.
Clark would say that Wikipedia is a non-biological construct in the world around us that does help us store more information. According to Clark, once technology is integrated, you come to trust it in the same way you trust your body. Wikipedia can then be associated with the human brain and memory. Your brain stores and retains information which can be changed at any time. Also, false or distorted information can be stored in the brain sometimes. Since Wikipedia is a compilation of data that anyone can edit, it is similar to the human brain in that any information can be added or stored and there is a possibility of false or distorted information since anyone can edit Wikipedia. This can relate to the extended mind thesis; just because an action is mediated by technology doesn’t make them any different. The only problem is that the internet is not supposed to be part of the extended mind thesis because it is unreliable. Although the internet is unreliable and Wikipedia is part of the internet, I believe that you can make the argument that the human brain is also unreliable. For example, if there is a bank robbery, eyewitness accounts are always different among all of the innocent bystanders. Since the human brain and Wikipedia alike are both subject to error, I believe that they can still be related and Clark would advocate the point that Wikipedia helps us with the storage of information.
Dreyfus, on the other hand, would disagree with that argument. Dreyfus stated “if our body goes, so does relevance, skill, reality, and meaning.” Considering Wikipedia as an extended part of the human brain is definitely not what Dreyfus has in mind. He believes that considering something such as Wikipedia as the brain would cause humans to be less real and lose meaning. Since there is no interaction with other human beings or any first hand experience in looking up things on Wikipedia, it cannot be part of us. The information stored on Wikipedia is outside, unreliable information that can be wrong. Dreyfus believes the information supplied on the internet cannot substitute for the human interaction. Learning at a school, for example, causes students to discuss and validate their information. Since Wikipedia is not validated, it can contain false information. As the saying goes, false knowledge is worse than no knowledge at all.
Randi Burns | 28-Nov-06 at 3:55 pm | Permalink
I sort of agree with your statement in that Clark might agree with Wikipedia and Dreyfus wouldnt but I disagree with your statement on the bank robbery. while the eyewitness accounts can be different I dont necessarily believe that automatically makes them false. In a bank robbery people view things from different angles and may think some details are more important than others so I dont really agree with that part.
Kristina Hughes | 28-Nov-06 at 7:32 pm | Permalink
In reference to Dreyfus’ argument, who is to say teachers, in physcial one-on-one teaching, cannot give false information? Bleecker makes some refernce to this when talking about blogging; “…some embryonic Blogjects literally just blog and don’t pay attention to comments…–but I guess some human bloggers don’t pay attention to comments, either”(Bleecker 193). Humans are flawed just as machines are.
Jessica Podeschi | 28-Nov-06 at 9:38 pm | Permalink
In response to Randi’s comment, I would just like to point out that I don’t think Jeffrey meant that the human brain is wrong in that sense, only that it isn’t reliable because of the fact people find different things important and remember them more vividly than others. Also, in moments like that, with a high level of stress people can misinterpret or miss or forget so much. This lack of necessary information is essential and without it, the testimony is unreliable
Daniel Fahey | 29-Nov-06 at 3:51 pm | Permalink
I think Wikipedia is a bad example of a nonbiological construct that helps us store information. The example of knowing the time that Dan always uses in class is a better one. If someone asks you the time you can say that you do know it, because you can pull out your phone and check the time. The clock on your phone changes for daylight savings and adjusts for time zones when you travel, so it’s reliable no matter what, the technology that the phone involves determines the exact time all the time unless there is some malfunction. Whereas if someone asked you what AM and FM actually stood for and you had your laptop out you could say “Yeah, I know” and look it up quickly on Wikipedia. The correct answer for what they stand for is currently on Wikipedia, but I could easily go in and change that information right now to something completely wrong. I think we need to be more selective in what we call and trust as nonbiological constructs that help us store more information.
Jeffrey Seredynski | 04-Dec-06 at 8:51 pm | Permalink
I don’t think I was clear enough when I gave the bank robbery example and Jessica helped clear it up a little more. For further clarification, I would just like to point out how people are unreliable when it comes to identification of criminal activity. Although the stress or intensity of the situation can come into play during that type of situation, personal bias also plays a roll. In certain instances after a crime is committed, eyewitness accounts vary based on person bias. Imagine there is a white guy robbing a bank with his face clearly showing and there were 10 eyewitness accounts of the robbery. When police question the eyewitnesses about a description of the robber, some will say the robber was black and yet others will say he was Hispanic all due to personal bias.