Is print the double edged sword that dangles by a thread?

[swansont]

On 3/20/2024 at 9:48 AM, dimreepr said:

For instance, Socrates wasn't a fan.

Socrates famously having lived after the invention of the printing press.

30 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

That's my point, understanding a complicated concept is far more likely to be taught effectively through the spoken word, than the written version of knowledge, bc that version is always at least one generation out of date; and I think that might be the tumor of societies, since every empire in history has failed, for some reason

How does a record of what someone said become out of date? Has a new version of e.g. the Gettysburg Address been released?

 

Spoken word relies on memory, which is flawed. Writing before the printing press relied on hand-made copies, which were often not faithful to the original. Would you want a legal issue decided based on what people thought they remembered, or would you rather have multiple identical copies of a written document.

[dimreepr]

22 hours ago, swansont said:

Socrates famously having lived after the invention of the printing press.

He also famously refused to write thing's down. The topic title was meant as a metaphor, the juxtaposition of the rate of change in a world that supposedly understands what 'the sword of Damocles' means. 

Writ large in the opening of Will Self's speech that I linked to, in which he explains the value of him not writing his speech.

22 hours ago, swansont said:

How does a record of what someone said become out of date? Has a new version of e.g. the Gettysburg Address been released?

The word gay for instance, in my lifetime, has changed meaning quite radically; if my grandchildren read a book of the sixties that suggested the pope was gay, etymology would be of little help if their teacher was biased enough to want the pope to be homosexual, to put the cat among the chickens, perhaps.

22 hours ago, StringJunky said:

Is it part of a managed persona to be constantly cryptic?

Not at all, it's simply a sign that my thoughts are hard to capture in this format and that I'm quite stupid and slow witted.

 

22 hours ago, StringJunky said:

It's a waste of life "conversing" with you, how you behave. Your behaviour is fucking irritating. This is the first and last time I'm saying this.

I'm sorry that your biased perception of me, makes you so angry; but are you aware that you don't have to read anything I say?

It's not the first time though is it, please stop peppering my topic's with your personal attacks.

Edited March 22 by dimreepr

[swansont]

50 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

He also famously refused to write thing's down. The topic title was meant as a metaphor, the juxtaposition of the rate of change in a world that supposedly understands what 'the sword of Damocles' means. 

Did I reference the title?

I was referencing the question “Are we better off having invented the printing press?” that you asked in the OP. Which suggests that the topic is not about writing things down, but the ease of making multiple, identical copied of the written word.

How easy was it to write things down 2400+ years ago, as opposed to recent times?

50 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The word gay for instance, in my lifetime, has changed meaning quite radically; if my grandchildren read a book of the sixties that suggested the pope was gay, etymology would be of little help if their teacher was biased enough to want the pope to be homosexual, to put the cat among the chickens, perhaps.

Only written words can change meaning?

Can you trace etymology with only an oral tradition?

 

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, swansont said:

Can you trace etymology with only an oral tradition?

In some way's I think it's easier, in that etymology has no real meaning in an oral tradition bc they only have to understand what it means now.

[swansont]

11 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

In some way's I think it's easier, in that etymology has no real meaning in an oral tradition bc they only have to understand what it means now.

But if the words have changed meaning, then the oratory has as well. How is that better?

[dimreepr]

9 minutes ago, swansont said:

But if the words have changed meaning, then the oratory has as well. How is that better?

The meaning is understood bc the oratory has changed in step with now.

Understanding is better than knowledge.

Edited March 22 by dimreepr

[swansont]

9 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The meaning is understood bc the oratory has changed in step with now.

Has it? You’re just asserting this. 

Why is American English different from British? We don’t have words and idioms with different meanings?

 

[TheVat]

2 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Understanding is better than knowledge.

Oh, good!  I understood perfectly that I could bond the neutral in my breaker subpanel and save the expense of a grounding bar kit.  Guess I didn't need the knowledge of that written electrical code, that neutral is only bonded to ground in the main panel.  So the metal subpanel box and EMT conduit back to main panel went "live" and sent a grounding fault through me instead of back to the earth rod.  NOW I understand everything!

 

[Phi for All]

15 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

The meaning is understood bc the oratory has changed in step with now.

But oral traditions didn't guarantee understanding. We've seen that rote memorization isn't the best strategy if you want folks to "get it".

16 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Understanding is better than knowledge.

But it requires knowledge in the first place, and may not happen even if knowledge is bestowed. There is no understanding without the knowledge underpinning it.

 

[CharonY]

Students cannot recall what you told them 5 mins ago. 

[swansont]

26 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Students cannot recall what you told them 5 mins ago. 

And there’s what we called the “not” filter when I was teaching.

You tell them that something is not true, and they remember it as being true. They will swear up and down that that’s what you told them.

 

[iNow]

12 hours ago, CharonY said:

Students cannot recall what you told them 5 mins ago. 

Wait, why? What happened 5 minutes ago?!?

15 hours ago, dimreepr said:

the sword of Damocles

If it makes you feel better, I (and I trust an appreciable number of SFNers) caught the reference 

[CharonY]

13 hours ago, swansont said:

And there’s what we called the “not” filter when I was teaching.

You tell them that something is not true, and they remember it as being true. They will swear up and down that that’s what you told them.

 

I especially love this effect when in exams you ask something like: name an example that is NOT  X (yes I started to bold and underline that for a while now). And they answer simply with "X". Sometimes it is likely that they have no clue and just hope for some partial points. But worse are elaborate answers that suggest that they spent time thinking, but not enough time reading all the words in the sentence.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

Wait, why? What happened 5 minutes ago?!?

Squirrel!

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, Phi for All said:

But oral traditions didn't guarantee understanding. We've seen that rote memorization isn't the best strategy if you want folks to "get it".

But it requires knowledge in the first place, and may not happen even if knowledge is bestowed. There is no understanding without the knowledge underpinning it.

 

And all the knowledge of internet doesn't guarantee understanding anything, just reading a dry textbook without context is a good example of rote memorisation.

Salons like this are like an oasis in a dessert of misinformation and misunderstanding, most of us are stuck in the desert of screen's, as described by Will later in the speech.

My friend said to me "what about your position on democracy, where everyone who can hold a pen gets a vote? Doesn't that contradict your position?".

My answer is no, bc that system only work's when everyone isn't reading from the same hymn sheet and it's upto guy's like you to provide the context; basically what I'm saying is understanding doesn't scale up easily and printing more isn't the answer.

[Phi for All]

56 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

And all the knowledge of internet doesn't guarantee understanding anything, just reading a dry textbook without context is a good example of rote memorisation.

Do you think a decent fraction of that knowledge could be presented orally? Do you think some textbooks aren't dry and the readers have context, or do you insist on using such a broad brush?

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

basically what I'm saying is understanding doesn't scale up easily and printing more isn't the answer.

Basically I disagree. I think understanding scales more easily the more knowledge you have to work with. The amount of print directly affects the probability that understanding can happen. Do you honestly think reducing the printed word will increase understanding? Will understanding go to 100% if print goes to 0%?

Perhaps you can convince me that I should wait until I meet you face-to-face to gain any knowledge or understanding from you.

 

[MSC]

You could make the exact same thread about the invention of email. It didn't just replace fax, it was a supercharged replacement. The amount of documents sent increased many times.

 

However, fax is STILL used today as are printing presses and they are hanging on not by a thread but are hanging on via still having relavent uses. For example hospitals and other industries still use fax because it is a much securer method of data handling than email is. 

The written word is still around, I keep a hard journal as do many others. To put it simply, if the thread that is keeping something around is human sentiment, then that thread is near enough indestructible.

[dimreepr]

22 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Basically I disagree. I think understanding scales more easily the more knowledge you have to work with. The amount of print directly affects the probability that understanding can happen. Do you honestly think reducing the printed word will increase understanding? Will understanding go to 100% if print goes to 0%?

Perhaps you can convince me that I should wait until I meet you face-to-face to gain any knowledge or understanding from you.

OK, let's put a pin in that for now...

The other fork of my argument is the propagation of fear, a way more insidious threat to every society; it's the old question, is ignorance bliss?

Most of what's in newsprint, beyond the local press, doesn't really affect us in any meaningful way bc it both point's to what we can't do anything about and it spins the meaning in favour of the party they support.

If a hermit came out of his cave, everytime it was time to vote and asked a dozen people, randomly chosen, who he should vote for, I think his answer would be free of the press induced propaganda; ignorant?

For some, knowledge is a burden.

22 hours ago, MSC said:

You could make the exact same thread about the invention of email. It didn't just replace fax, it was a supercharged replacement. The amount of documents sent increased many times.

 

However, fax is STILL used today as are printing presses and they are hanging on not by a thread but are hanging on via still having relavent uses. For example hospitals and other industries still use fax because it is a much securer method of data handling than email is. 

The written word is still around, I keep a hard journal as do many others. To put it simply, if the thread that is keeping something around is human sentiment, then that thread is near enough indestructible.

I'm not suggesting print et al has replaced anything, I'm suggesting the acceleration phase is too fast for society to find it's feet before it takes the next step.

General AI, might be able to catch-up and find a balance, with an efficient algorithm that filter's what we're allowed to see.

[TheVat]

3 hours ago, dimreepr said:

If a hermit came out of his cave, everytime it was time to vote and asked a dozen people, randomly chosen, who he should vote for, I think his answer would be free of the press induced propaganda; ignorant?

 

 And how would a hermit know how to evaluate whatever answers he received, having no knowledge of the candidates?  The randomness of his "sample" is irrelevant - he lacks the knowledge base to critically examine their opinions or determine their veracity.

If his cave is in rural Alabama, he will likely be strongly directed to vote for TFG.  If it's in Eugene, Oregon, he will be steered towards Biden.   Either place, he lacks the contextual knowledge that literacy and reputable journalism can provide.

How has the irony of this thread not inundated you yet?

[MSC]

4 hours ago, dimreepr said:

I'm not suggesting print et al has replaced anything, I'm suggesting the acceleration phase is too fast for society to find it's feet before it takes the next step.

Now that point holds some serious weight for me, yet I do think it's a genie out of the bottle situation. Technological advancement is in general accelerating at a pace too fast for a generation to adjust, before it has to adjust to something newer. 

It's like we keep launching a ship to a distant star system where at some point in the journey, each ship is overtaken by the next generation ship, but now we have to figure out how to get everyone onto the newer faster ship without slowing down or stopping. At some point, while everyone is halfway onto a newer ship, an even newer ship will show up and really throw a wrench into things. Not to mention all the folk who will be saying "No I prefer the old ship!".

[dimreepr]

20 hours ago, TheVat said:

And how would a hermit know how to evaluate whatever answers he received, having no knowledge of the candidates?

No-one is born a hermit, besides what is more pervasive, the party or the candidate? Even the most intellectually challenged can tell when things are fundamentally unfair.

19 hours ago, MSC said:

yet I do think it's a genie out of the bottle situation.

LOL, yes indeed, we're unlikely to solve any of the worlds problems in this forum, but then again every journey starts with the first step. 

20 hours ago, TheVat said:

If his cave is in rural Alabama, he will likely be strongly directed to vote for TFG.  If it's in Eugene, Oregon, he will be steered towards Biden.   Either place, he lacks the contextual knowledge that literacy and reputable journalism can provide.

You can't have it both ways... 

What reputable journalist came out of Alabama. 😉