Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Many perhaps most of us use Goodle and find it to be a useful tool. But, there are also many of us who assume Google has all the answers and the best ones are the first four or five on the first search page.
There seems to be a form of philosophical thinking developing among people who rely fully on Google. That philosophy takes two forms that shape a persons acceptance of what determines truth.
1. If there are many results, it must be true because so many believe it to be.
2. If there are no results or few, it must be false because not many believe it to be true.
Does the number of Google "hits" influence our thinking and beliefs?
I think it does, but it must be used with caution. Just because there are a dozen crop circle sites and three saying what a crock it it, does not mean that it is an election result. It s needful to check one site against another and at least get a second opinion.
While I find Google to be a very helpful tool, one should keep in mind the results of a google search are sorted by popularity, not accuracy. Every things needs to be checked and it is a good idea to look at contradicting results.
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,508,655 times
Reputation: 1721
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodrow LI
Many perhaps most of us use Goodle and find it to be a useful tool. But, there are also many of us who assume Google has all the answers and the best ones are the first four or five on the first search page.
There seems to be a form of philosophical thinking developing among people who rely fully on Google. That philosophy takes two forms that shape a persons acceptance of what determines truth.
1. If there are many results, it must be true because so many believe it to be.
2. If there are no results or few, it must be false because not many believe it to be true.
Does the number of Google "hits" influence our thinking and beliefs?
Perhaps. But if you look at your 2 questions could their main points it not be applied to past forms of media (of course asked in a different way). The TV "experts" at Fox or MSNBC said this so it must be true. Or the New York Times or Washington Post reported (from sources) so it must absolutely be true. Or how about oral stories/rumors that are passed from one person to another or even through generations. Your questions could be applied to all of these. Google is just a continuation of this process. There is one big difference though. At least with the TV and Newspapers there are some Standards required to put forth a story/news/etc. The problems of Google are that sometimes those first couple of links that come up are Blogs which vary in degree integrity. well actually looking at Fox and MSNBC I take that a back maybe at times they're no better than some of the blogs.
So you point is taken Woodrow. But I think these problems that your questions are trying to get at have been around a long, long time. And will continue to Hagar the human race for a while longer. What worries me more actually is that people out there are more interested in knowing what celebrities doing or latest meme’s are as oppose to knowing what going on in our world. In my opinion these distractions make our societies less informed about our world and twist what is actually important in our lives. It's very concerning to me.
Last edited by baystater; 06-23-2012 at 03:42 PM..
When I read the title I thought this was going to be a discussion of the Google motto " Don't be evil", which actually could spark some good conversations...
I actually think that in some ways google has helped the process, by reducing the availability bias. I mean, I remember as an elementary school kid having to use the card catalog, and all the reference books to find publications. If you didn't already know about something, it was pretty hard to stumble across it. The first time I hit wikipedia, I spent hours chasing random trains of thought. it was amazing. It is easy to assume that the information has been vetted in some way especially since for technical stuff, it kind of is. If I want a reasonably comprehensive explanation of a Fourier Transform I can find it, and generally all the sources agree on the details.
I actually think it is the other way around. The availability of information allow people to ignore otherwise overwhelmingly supported information based on their own bias. A stunning example of this are the amount of Americans who insist that the President is a foreign born muslim, in the face of overwhelming evidence.
The internet, and Google's search capabilities have given people the possibility to exist in sort of a global echo chamber. When everyone you get information from agrees with you, you must be right, right? I don't think this is a problem of technology, I think this is a problem of people, even without Google, we have the same problem. People assume that the loudest voice they hear is correct, even if they are self-selecting that voice. It just exposes and magnifies the effect of people's desire to hear what they already think.
Ive seen opinion when looking for facts only..enclosed in a shifty manor.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Perhaps. But if you look at your 2 questions could their main points it not be applied to past forms of media (of course asked in a different way). The TV "experts" at Fox or MSNBC said this so it must be true. Or the New York Times or Washington Post reported (from sources) so it must absolutely be true. Or how about oral stories/rumors that are passed from one person to another or even through generations. Your questions could be applied to all of these. Google is just a continuation of this process. There is one big difference though. At least with the TV and Newspapers there are some Standards required to put forth a story/news/etc. The problems of Google are that sometimes those first couple of links that come up are Blogs which vary in degree integrity. 
