Pieter Jansegers, his work, his hobbies, his friends, colleagues and students
The truth according to Wikipedia.
This video was shown for the first time about two weeks ago on The Next Web Conference 2008 which was e-casted live by the Dutch NOS and VPRO using the technology for the China Olympics.
An article on it can be found at
http://thenextweb.org/2008/04/01/thenextweb2008-update-the-truth-ac...
Some discussion can be found at
http://thenextweb.org/2008/04/06/the-people-versus-the-expert/
And recently a professor launched this severe article about Wikipedia
Wikipedia and the blind trust in it - http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1828979092
The video gives both the critical view of the Encyclopedia Brittanica Chief editor and the enthusiastic one of the founder of Wikipedia and let people think about knowledge in a fresh way.
Wikipedia is too me the best way to find the common sense and basic knowledge of the postmodern human being about any subject. Sociologically speaking it is really enormously interesting.
Also because knowledge is indeed a construction mainly based on words defined by words defined by words. One big intertextual transfer from generation upon generation.
The only thing of which anyone can be really sure is what that person did do in person. Basicly all the rest is congesture at best based on some evidence.
The funny thing is that even evidence is only a material thing that can be displaid to the public to be watched upon. This thing has no meaning on it own without a linguistical context.
The idea in Prison Break to plant a ring of an opponent in the blood under the stairs to imply the guiltiness of a rival is quite a good example to this.
Facts are indeed things that are to be made up out of the stream of events. No one can fully understand the things that happened to theirselves, we all have to make sense of things, meaning to put things into context and perspective.
So we can only have probability, plausibility and coherence of possibility about anything that happened to anyone else, especially of something happened in the past. In the end. it virtually all depends upon the credibility of a story.
In science, the situation also depends upon modelling reality, which is as fuzzy as putting word labels on it because in order to quantify anything you have to categorize it first.
Categorization means comparing it to a definition upon which you first have to agree. Problem is that a definition by criteria means that there are quite a lot of things you have to exclude in other to be certain of the things you are going to say about them.
If an object is not completely corresponding with all the criteria of even a perfect scientific model anything that can be said about it is only as probable as the probability of the right categorization of that object.
I really like epistemology...
I always say that if you have 50 chairs and you cut them in two, you do have a 100 broken chairs...
An article on it can be found at
http://thenextweb.org/2008/04/01/thenextweb2008-update-the-truth-ac...
Some discussion can be found at
http://thenextweb.org/2008/04/06/the-people-versus-the-expert/
And recently a professor launched this severe article about Wikipedia
Wikipedia and the blind trust in it - http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1828979092
The video gives both the critical view of the Encyclopedia Brittanica Chief editor and the enthusiastic one of the founder of Wikipedia and let people think about knowledge in a fresh way.
Wikipedia is too me the best way to find the common sense and basic knowledge of the postmodern human being about any subject. Sociologically speaking it is really enormously interesting.
Also because knowledge is indeed a construction mainly based on words defined by words defined by words. One big intertextual transfer from generation upon generation.
The only thing of which anyone can be really sure is what that person did do in person. Basicly all the rest is congesture at best based on some evidence.
The funny thing is that even evidence is only a material thing that can be displaid to the public to be watched upon. This thing has no meaning on it own without a linguistical context.
The idea in Prison Break to plant a ring of an opponent in the blood under the stairs to imply the guiltiness of a rival is quite a good example to this.
Facts are indeed things that are to be made up out of the stream of events. No one can fully understand the things that happened to theirselves, we all have to make sense of things, meaning to put things into context and perspective.
So we can only have probability, plausibility and coherence of possibility about anything that happened to anyone else, especially of something happened in the past. In the end. it virtually all depends upon the credibility of a story.
In science, the situation also depends upon modelling reality, which is as fuzzy as putting word labels on it because in order to quantify anything you have to categorize it first.
Categorization means comparing it to a definition upon which you first have to agree. Problem is that a definition by criteria means that there are quite a lot of things you have to exclude in other to be certain of the things you are going to say about them.
If an object is not completely corresponding with all the criteria of even a perfect scientific model anything that can be said about it is only as probable as the probability of the right categorization of that object.
I really like epistemology...
I always say that if you have 50 chairs and you cut them in two, you do have a 100 broken chairs...
Add a Comment
About
Badge
© 2009 Created by Pieter Jansegers on Ning. Create Your Own Social Network
You need to be a member of Pieter Jansegers Ning Network to add comments!
Join this social network