Hi all
I don't know how many of you realize what a unique and positive creation Bee-L is. The following excerpts show what a good source of information is and is not:


It is sometimes claimed that the internet will lead to a "democratization of knowledge" and that such "democratization" is a welcome development.  It is possible to understand democratization as bringing a wider range of people into the exchange of ideas, or as introducing new processes of information dissemination.

The internet not only allows for information consumption but also for the presentation of claims to knowledge by anybody having access and minimal technological skills. A common thought about internet democratization is that the inclusive technology of the web not only increases the amount of information available, but also allows claims to knowledge to emanate from a more heterogeneous collection of sources than those represented by traditional mass media.  

A more radical reading of the thesis of democratization suggests a change in structure. In the age of the internet, people with access to huge amounts of information become cognitively more autonomous. They are no longer forced to rely on the opinions of a select group of experts.  

Yet, if the source is not someone familiar, someone with whom there will be ongoing interactions and available procedures for responding to unmasked deception, questions of sincerity do arise. How does a seeker discern those posts that misinform – either because they are intended to mislead, or because they are made in a spirit of fun, on the assumption that nobody would ever take them seriously?  

There are ways of overcoming the problem, at least in some instances. Would-be informants succeed only if they can overcome the doubts of those who seek information of the sort they offer. Seekers only increase their knowledge if they can find the genuine sources. Initially, it appears that the new voices heard on the internet cannot be assessed by the markers seekers have learned to use.

John Stuart Mill imagines a debate about some large (important) issue, in which various perspectives are publicly presented. People concerned to make up their minds on this issue are able to attend to all that is said in this debate. At the conclusion of the presentations, these people are able to weigh the evidence offered, to assess arguments and counter-arguments, and they make their decisions on this basis.

It’s important to recognize that the arena can only generate the supposed benefits, only qualify as the best way of social decision-making, if certain conditions are present. To put the point negatively, there are plenty of ways in which things can go badly wrong. 

1. Those who decide may not understand the evidence presented, or even the question at issue. 

2. The representation of alternative perspectives may be incomplete. 

3. Some perspectives may receive more "air time" than others. 

4. Presentations may include false statements whose falsehood the audience is in no position to detect. 

5. Some perspectives may be presented with more rhetorical skill than others. 

6. Those who decide may lack the skills required for proper weighing of the evidence.

One promising development seems to be the formation of open source communities. Paul de Laat defines them as groups of "peers producing content together on a voluntary basis, without direction from markets or managerial hierarchy, and posting their created content in a virtual commons accessible to all.’’

Mößner, Nicola, and Philip Kitcher. "Knowledge, Democracy, and the Internet." Minerva 55.1 (2017): 1-24.

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html