On Mon, 21 Feb 2011, Weinheimer Jim wrote:
> Concerning an article in the March 10, 2011 NY Review of Books: "How We
> Know" by Freeman Dyson ...
> "Telescopes and spacecraft have evolved slowly, but cameras and optical
> data processors have evolved fast. Modern sky-survey projects collect
> data from huge areas of sky and produce databases with accurate
> information about billions of objects. *Astronomers without access to
> large instruments can make discoveries by mining the databases instead
> of observing the sky.* [my emphasis--JW] Big databases have caused
> similar revolutions in other sciences such as biochemistry and ecology."
Well, Jim:
I certainly appreciate your main point regarding the need for
"selection" of data from vast amounts constantly pouring in, but can we
expect mere humans to do unbiased selection? And could librarians perhaps
contribute to the solution by stepping up to gather and analyze overlooked
data, rather than merely "selecting" what is deemed by social pressure to
be appropriate?
Consider that there are a number of critical disciplines consistently
unmentioned when it comes to data collection and analysis. For example,
were we just to collect ongoing political and media statements and analyze
them in relation to databases of fact for distortion (e.g., manipulative
nature, intimidation, self-interest, falsity*), we could probably produce
accurate tools of measurement that would dispel the process of distortion
itself, thus producing a "big revolution" in human behavior. We have all
the access we need to observations and data, all we need to do is compile
and constantly mine it.
Unfortunately, humans would be in control of the analyses, and one has to
ask whether they could neutrally evaluate their own conclusions (requiring
self-analysis) for the problems being investigated, or overcome social,
political and economic pressuring to distort the analyses.
Still, that would be entire point of analyzing social data, would it
not? So could we make it possible to go beyond "selection" and develop and
publicize unbiased collections and analyses of social data? I submit that
librarians may have the best perspectives from which to attempt it, if
librarian could resist the waves of opposition which would arise from the
classes seeking only social control and survive as a sort of "information
union."
Got the guts to try it? If we can only timidly submit to the limited
parameters defined for our profession by the funding agencies (quite a
varied group), we have to remain impotent. If we can at least investigate
ways of freeing information gathering and analysis from the constraints of
prejudiced sponsorships, we may have a chance to save an entire species.
Better to start now than wait until the need is any more obvious!
[*Of course, these parameters already have workable, objective
definitions in the psychological community or simply need some impetus to
develop them.]
Cheers!
jgm
John G. Marr
Cataloger
CDS, UL
Univ. of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
jmarr_at_unm.edu
jmarr_at_flash.net
**There are only 2 kinds of thinking: "out of the box" and "outside
the box."
Opinions belong exclusively to the individuals expressing them, but
sharing is permitted.
Received on Mon Feb 21 2011 - 17:20:14 EST