 |
| To the bridge - James Brown |
Yet in the era of Facebook and Twitter, an irritating extension of this basic principle is creeping up on us. It is as if people want government by instant opinion.
A political decision or event is reported on online and within minutes you have a scroll of fully-formed, categorical opinions. No ifs or maybes in sight.
Now democracy was invented precisely to allow opinions to clash, thereby producing a healthier, more open society. But the assumption of classical democratic thought always was that opinions are rationally formed and based on facts. The social media are shattering this assumption.
The most irritating manifestation of this phenomenon is when people express opinions on matters which are of a purely technical nature and about which no opinions are possible.
Fact: water boils at 100 degress centigrades. Only an idiot would say that he has a right to the opinion that it boils at 85 degrees. Yet alas, so many of the online commentariat commit this fallacy with iron-clad determination.
Take the new bridge just installed over the Grand Harbour breakwater. The installation was postponed a couple of times because of the weather. Apparently, it has to be very calm for the operation to succeed. A purely technical fact about which there can be no alternative opinion.
Sorry, the citizens of Facebook and Twitterland will have none of it. Everyone has an 'alternative' opinion to express: 'The sea is calm today. What are those the lazy bastards up to?' ... 'If it's calm enough to swim, it should be calm enough to install it, right?' ... 'I think that something went wrong' ...
It drives up the wall.
15 comments:
Hey Lou
Fair point, though as much as it is irritating, i find it rather insightful.
Even the irrational and ill thought comments have their place, if anything it allows for them to be challenged and though not always so, possibly change their view or bring them to a more informed perspective to re-think.
If the pot is placed in a closed chamber and the pressure is reduced, the water will boil at 85 degrees.
Water CAN be made to boil at a temperature lower than 100 degrees centigrade. BUT that means adjusting the conditions in which it is made to boil. (That's how pressure cookers work.)
To apply that analogy to bridge-installation, the opinion-incontinent can either wait for the weather to change or they can change it themselves, unless they believe technology is alchemy.
I think that the bridge is nice. The comments you quoted reflect ignorance (although I wouldn't call the people ignorant if I had a stake in the generation and control of opinion). That said, the rest of the article is not justifiable by those examples.
Issa,whether the idea that water boils at 100 degrees centigrades is a fact or opinion is debatable, and hence itself an opinion. Some people might argue that water only boils at exactly 100 degrees in controlled environments.
The fact is that people have a right to their opinions, and the Internet gives them a mean to express those opinions. This changes EVERYTHING, especially for those who make a living out of selling opinions...
So the smart players will develop strategies that take this into account. They will not try to stop the internet from doing what it is meant to do; i.e. evolving democratic cultures into participatory cultures.
While being in full agreement with the gist of your post... there is nothing as frustrating as reading the ignorance posted on Timesofmalta.com, for example; may I correct you slightly and, if I may, advise you to do as I do and be cautious as to which facts are to be considered sacred - few are!
Such as, water boiling at 100C - the boiling point of water is dependent on the pressure to which it is subjected, and yes, it can certainly boil at 85C or less!
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/boiling-point-water-d_926.html
Pedantic point concluded!
I love this blog! It so reminds me of an article you wrote many moons ago entitled Portmoney Economics - or something like that - I suggest you post it here!
The cute 'pedantic' physics points above continue to illustrate the point I made of course. Bringing in pressure into the equation does not make the proportional boiling point changes a matter of opinion.
Idiots are not an exclusive facebook phenomenon. It just gives them a platform to express themselves and makes their comments easier to find. There is a partial solution - steer away from facebook or at least keep to people you know are sensible.
Of course not, you assumed atmospheric pressure.
Rest assured however, that there are those who will insist water boils naturally at 85 degrees celsius simply to spite you. Their game is just that, leaving out certain details.
I know one who would gladly claim he can boil water at a reduced temperature, if it means lowering the energy bills.
What he dosn't do is specify that to be able to do so, he'd have to reduce the amount of air in a specific volume.
Maybe he does it already, to balance his internal pressure.
Lou, our (separately written) points about the physics of boiling points are not only cute, but correct! They not only fail to prove your point, but do exactly the opposite!
C,
The boiling point of water is not an opinion. grr.
Assuming atmospheric pressure, it will boil at 100 degrees Celsius.
The lower the pressure, the lower the boiling point.
The higher the pressure, the higher the boiling point.
The temperature scale itself was designed from zero degrees to a hundred degrees corresponding to the two transition states of water, at atmospheric pressure.
People don't have a right to differ from the above because of their democratic right to an opinion.
Now if you add sugar.......
... for the last time. If the boiling point of water is changed, the cause for the change are always know and they are facts, not opinion. Ex, unless you are an idiot, you cannot have an 'opinion' that pressure does not alter the boiling point.
JV, your explanation is right. Similarly, conventions make it a fact that 1 litre of water (under specific conditions) has a mass of 1Kg.
But this discussion is about the power of social media. The FACT that social media users have been able to spot the weakness in Lou's original article is proof against Lou's article. I guess that this is why he's further explained what he originally must have meant.
Now, I do disagree with Lou's opinion that social media users are idiots, or that a journalist has a right to imply that they are. I would professionally advise that journalists embrace social media and their pros and cons. Along with the proliferation of the Internet and the availability of education, they're simply too powerful (rendering Lou's original article useless). In the future (and to a certain extent at present) everyone will be a journalist, and traditional journalists must find ways to protect their position.
Indeed, Lou is right on one thing. We (i.e. everyone) need to be able to authenticate the quality of the information that is presented to us.
You managed to contradict yourself again.
1 litre of water weighs 1kg because it was agreed to define the two units of measurement using water. It's not a fact but a protocol for their universal replication and certification. Such standardisation resulted in planetary development. How many pounds would thirty cubic feet of water weigh?
What do you mean under specific conditions? Water is an incompressible fluid, 1 litre will always weigh 1kg. It's why ships float.
I don't like it when someone inserts disclaimers into a statement, (especially in brackets)
This conversation reminds me when someone started multiplying the number of containers required for the removal and export of fuel waste produced by the new power plant.
In my view Lou's article is about people's tendency to adapt to the instant nature of the information, rendering it an object of consumption. Easy access becomes cheapness thus approximate.
Let alone democracy.
Which I'm afraid exposes another contradiction. When you state a journalist protects his position, you imply scepticism with regards to the nature of a blog. That somehow you suspect there's someone editing and pruning it. After telling me I'm out of point.
If anything Lou's tapping into the level of dialectics saturating the social media. In the future, journalists will need all the talent they can muster to interpret all this. I seriously doubt that to be possible given the preconceptions.
JV, your opinions ans interpretations are interesting, but well, not absolute. You said:
"1 litre of water weighs 1kg because it was agreed to define the two units of measurement using water. It's not a fact but a protocol for their universal replication and certification." Well, is it not a fact that 1 litre of water weighs 1kg because it was agreed to define the two units of measurement using water? This is what I meant when I said "conventions make it a fact that 1 litre of water (under specific conditions) has a mass of 1Kg."
You wrote: "What do you mean under specific conditions? Water is an incompressible fluid, 1 litre will always weigh 1kg. It's why ships float." As far as I know the density of pure water is 1.0000 g/m^3 at a temperature of 4 degrees centigrade. At, say, 80 degrees it's a little bit less. Maybe you're defining water as H2O at 4 deg? It's ok if you are... But you didn't say so...
You also first said that you don't like disclaimers in brackets and then used language that almost encrypts your message... For example, you said "Which I'm afraid exposes another contradiction. When you state a journalist protects his position, you imply scepticism with regards to the nature of a blog. That somehow you suspect there's someone editing and pruning it. After telling me I'm out of point." What does that mean?? Perhaps you intend your message to be accessible to us who score an IQ of 140 or higher? I'm fine with that. But, well, JV, we can read what you write, not your mind. Perhaps I should say that we don't like vagueness or useless complexity too? No I shouldn't, I want to express a point, not undermine yours.
Finally, you said "[i]n the future, journalists will need all the talent they can muster to interpret all this. I seriously doubt that to be possible given the preconceptions." Well, I think that in the future journalists will be compelled to produce better articles. Social media (along with education and the rest) will eventually render the claim that some (like some journalists) know what is fact and what is not simply impossible, especially in the light of the above discussions about Lou's claim that it is a pure and solid fact that "water boils at 100 degress centigrades."
Now, I have sincerely rarely seen a bigger contradiction than this article... A journalist making an irreparable mistake in an article that attempts to point out the commentators' inadequacy!!! I tell you, we laughed our asses off.
This will be my last comment on this article. The point is there for those who can see it. Those who can't, probably can't even read...
Lou, well done on Bondi+, it's one of the best programs in Malta. But your blogging sucks, sorry.
YOUR OPINION DOES MATTER, AS LONG AS IT MAKES SENSE.
Post a Comment