I don’t know what your school experiences were like, but it seems to me that in most classes I took in high school and college there was usually someone who, at some point, would raise their hand to ask the teacher/instructor/professor, “Do we need to know this for the test?”
I always wondered what kind of chutzpah it took to ask this question. Was the person asking this question unaware of the message this query might send to the class leader? If that question were asked of me on those rare occasions that I lectured at the U of M I think I would have been offended, and I was merely a guest lecturer! In my view, as a student, I felt that if the instructor thought a concept was important enough to mention in class then it was probably a good idea for me to pay attention to learn it.
I always wondered, if the professor would have said, “No, you don’t need to know this for the test.” would the student react like a juror when something is stricken from the court transcript? Yes, I heard that, but it no longer applies because, in one case, the judge sustained the objection, and in the other the teacher said it wouldn’t be on the test. Like unringing a bell; I don’t know if that is possible.
I always figured that, as a student, it was my responsibility to figure out how to prepare for the test. Now, as a civilian in the real world, I figure it is up to me to figure out how to prepare for THE TEST. I use all caps because responsible citizenship is more important than any academic tests I ever took.
Society has evolved through many different periods marked by different characteristics.
The Stone Age – Marked by the use, by humans, of stones as the hard material for tools.
The Industrial Age – Marked by the rise of industry, like Henry Ford’s assembly line.
The Information Age – Marked by the fact that individuals with computers have unlimited access to information.
The problem I see now is that as we prepare for THE TEST of responsible citizenship we unfortunately have entered a new era I refer to as The Misinformation Age.
Before the internet, when I was a young man, news and information was delivered primarily by respected news sources like newspapers and network news shows. These information sources were trusted and respected as they worked diligently to verify their reporting, if for no other reason than to protect their own reputation and standing as reliable news sources.
The internet, upon its introduction, bristled with possibilities. The sheer amount of information readily available to the masses potentially should be a good thing. But is it? The problem that I see with the internet is that not only can the average citizen access a large percentage of the world’s accumulated knowledge, but the average citizen can also PUBLISH their own views, opinions, and misinformation, presented as fact, with no fact checking, or journalistic integrity to keep the authors honest. The onus for determining truthfulness used to fall on the journalists and newscasters. The rise in citizen journalism has now passed the chore of verifying information from those who PRODUCE information to those who CONSUME information. That requires critical thinking, which requires work, which I fear many news consumers are not willing to do.
Maybe I’m over sensitized to critical thinking. As a kindergartner I rushed home to read to my parents, “See Spot run.” After receiving congratulations on this achievement I was told by my dad that the author only wanted me to believe that Spot was running. At the time I was confused. Later I realized dad was telling me not to believe EVERYTHING I read and that checking facts to either support or disprove a story was an important step to take. I fear that many consumers of wiki’s, blogs (like this one), and many other internet sites do not take the time to question what they read. Rather, they prefer to stop searching when they find ‘news’ that matches their views.
I find Google a good jumping off point when searching for broad concepts and good place to start larger searches for information. Google though can be problematic if used as an end point by lazy seekers of information. Check out this site, http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Is_the_moon_made_of_cheese%3F
It sure looks like a Wikipedia page – a trusted end source for the lazy and incurious – but one would be poorly served using this site as their ultimate source of information regarding lunar composition. Misinformation presented in a manner that resembles information. Who knew?
Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, “You are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts.” Seems fair enough. People can react to events and form their own opinions. People however should not be entitled to present their own version of the facts as ‘news’ or ‘information’ if they are heavily biased and laden with opinion. This leads me to my latest discovery, Conservapedia.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page
Presented like Wikipedia pages one can find heavily biased opinion articles, presented as fact, attacking climate change and evolution. The opposite views of both of these issues are indisputable fact according to most scientists. Again, the lazy searcher, or one trolling to reinforce their preconceived notions, could use sites like this, on either end of the political spectrum, to mine for more misinformation. Who knew?
We now have ready access to more information than ever before. We also have access to more misinformation than ever before. Critical thinking is more important than at any time in our history.
Who knew?
