On 05/11/2011 08:18 PM, john g marr wrote:
<snip>
>> ... we *must" take people as they are ... *None* of us can take the time
>> to learn *everything* to make *deeply* informed decisions, there is
>> simply *too much* to know and it would be an *unending* task; as a
>> result, we
>> would accomplish *nothing* at all.
>
> There go those exaggerations, "fallacies" and "biases" again.
>
> There are way too many people who say such things followed
> (implicitly or explicitly) by "So let me be the Great Decider for
> you!" Our society does not have to run amok creating as many products
> and customers and as little personal time as possible-- there are, or
> can be, alternatives.
</snip>
This is an example of whenever one person says something in a forthright
manner, the response is that they are uttering fallacies and biases. The
moment a person makes a decision and takes a stand, they, by definition,
can be accused of being biased. Of course they are. They have made a
decision. The only other option is to never make a decision in the first
place, or backtrack constantly. I remember as a boy reading a saying of
my boyhood hero, Davy Crockett, who said, "I leave this for others when
I am dead--make sure you are right, then go ahead." Think about
something but sooner or later, you must make the best decision, be it
right or wrong, and take a stand.
The statement that "none of us can take the time to learn everything to
make deeply informed decisions" is a statement of absolute, 100% fact.
There is no exaggeration at all. That is, unless you can demonstrate
that it is indeed false but that will be very tough. Who is
simultaneously expert in mechanics, dentistry, climate change, the
local, national, and international budgets, international affairs,
languages, literatures, cultures, plus has a deep understanding of how
your corn was grown, harvested and canned, plus the best ways to massage
a cat? To know all of this is beyond my strength--I freely confess it,
and I rely on the knowledge and ethics of acknowledged experts, because
I have no choice. If needed, I would certainly want to trust an
experienced surgeon to cut me open instead of doing it myself. Since we
are mortal, we all have limitations and they must be acknowledged. I see
nothing wrong with this kind of situation. The human race has come up
with "cooperation" to make up for it. One person specializes in one
area, while another specializes in another area and they cooperate.
As I said before, I think people want help with selection and I think it
is our responsibility help them. Saying that each person needs to take
responsibility for their own "selection" using "critical thinking" could
be construed as a dereliction of our jobs. When someone does a search on
Google or Google Books or Scholar, or wherever, and gets hundreds or
thousands or millions of results from who knows where, then doing
critical thinking for each resource is impossible. That is also not an
exaggeration. The person looking at this is deciding what to do. Should
they look at the top 5 critically? What will they be missing? The
problem is not theirs--it is ours since we should somehow be helping
them. And not by preaching but by doing. In this case--and in the case
of much of information management today, the Google-type algorithms are
effectively doing the selection, and that is quite frightening for
society as a whole. I would much rather have acknowledged experts
involved in some way.
As I said, there is just too much to know and to work with. This
situation can be managed only in a cooperative way and I think libraries
could be an important part of an innovative solution that could help
everyone.
--
James L. Weinheimer weinheimer.jim.l_at_gmail.com
First Thus: http://catalogingmatters.blogspot.com/
Cooperative Cataloging Rules: http://sites.google.com/site/opencatalogingrules/
Received on Wed May 11 2011 - 16:46:27 EDT