Introduction
What is a reliable source for any information? Anybody with an Internet connection can write anything they want. Even this blog is one such thing. I have no qualification to write on any subject with authority save for some "public static void main". But still I am writing. So if a thousand blogs say that something is correct and only few "unknown" sites say the opposite, democratically, is it not correct, because that is majority? Is truth is what we feel and experience or something that is proven beyond doubt? Is truth is what works for me and may not for you? Is there no ultimate truth that is objective instead of subjective "feelings" or "experiences"? Is that coffee is hot for me and cold for you? But is there not a thermometer that says the coffee is 67C? What if someone sounds like a genuine skeptic while questioning the caliberation of the thermometer itself? I have seen people questioning moon landing and vaccines like true skeptics. Does questioning something makes you a skeptic while questioning something else makes you an idiot?
People who believe Coco-Cola and Mentos can produce cyanide without a question suddenly start to ask millions of question if you say that it won't. People who don't even have a doubt that solar eclipse causes birth defects become "Doubting Thomases" when you say that mercury in shark is harmful for lactating mother and label you as a foreign agent who questions their native wisdom! The source for the Coke-Mentos story may be a blog written from Brazil and the source for mercury in shark is FDA's own website. It doesn't matter. Both are websites. And some even argue that it is better to trust the Brazillian blogger as he has no financial interest than the FDA site which is influenced by corporate lobby! So whom can we trust?
History of Writing
Back in the old days, people who were educated alone could read and write. And only a minority of the educated minority wrote books. Majority of the population never had a chance to read something or express their ideas to a wider audience. Hand written copies of books were costly to produce, hard to maintain and almost out of reach for the public. Some countries allowed only the rich elites to possess books. Even worse, in some other countries only those people who were born in to particular castes were allowed to read and write.
Then came the printing press which allowed mass production of books. Books became cheaper and were within the reach of public. At the same time, industrial revolution and political changes allowed majority to get education. As literacy rate grew along with the increase in number of books, we saw a boom in creativity, inventions, discoveries and critical thinking. But there was a problem. Even though almost anyone could read a book, not everyone was able to publish a book. You can have your own manuscripts on your desk. Else you can even print a copy for yourself. But hitting market was out of question.
Even today, to reach a good number of audiences, you need a publisher. And the publishers lay out certain rules and restrictions to the buyers as well as to the writers! Writers are asked to surrender the copyright to publishers. Readers are restricted from creating derivative works. Even reselling of books and photocopying are becoming "offences" in the eyes of corporate publishers. On one side, quality books are becoming costlier and costlier. Also on the other side, whoever has money can publish anything they want. The books cover, paper quality and print, everything will look exactly like an encyclopedia from a renowned university, yet the content will be no better than "Weekly World News". On the third side, rise of Internet provides costless (apart from what you pay for data) information. Again in Internet, most of the serious researches and information are pay-walled, and anyone with a connection can write anything (they don't even need the power of money!) the picture is becoming very complex.
Let me categorize them vaguely.
1. Really Good Books
These are books that are product of serious research or study or skill. They are genuine works and they can be verified scientifically. They are written by scientists and researchers who invest their time, money and effort on their fields. These books are meant to be consumed by public and increase the awareness, ignite discussions and pave way for improvements or rectification of existing ideas. But the sad facts about the books are as follows. They cost more. They are "dry" and uninteresting for general public and most people seldom know the titles of these books! Add to this the threats and violent opposition to such books which dare to question existing beliefs or status quo!
2. Bad Books that Resembles Good Books
Majority of books sold in railway stations or book fairs etc. are of this category. They have polished covers, colorful photographs, shiny paper, good quality print, cost you a fortune and authored by a famous writer/activist you often see on TV or in movie credits. They resemble the "good books" in every aspect from ISBN to Best Seller endorsements. But they are nothing more than self-help crap, new-age rap, astrology bullshit, biased history batshit or mumbo-jumbo on any subject. Go to any book shop. You can find at least a dozen of books on Homeopathy but you can't get a book that explains Homeopathy is fake! As the free market neutrality and voting-with-your-wallet democracy "naturally selects" the "fittest for survival", you have books that endorse Homeopathy, Crystal Therapy, Astrology etc. widely and cheaply available, while a good book on astro-physics or bio-chemistry is out of stock (never been in stock) or out of budget!
3. Good Sites
Enter the Internet! There are some sites which are actually continuation of international science journals and serious magazines with genuine journalism from the printing era. They have made their way in to the Internet. But most of them are pay-walled. Even some of them are not pay-walled but they are unpopular among masses. Again, these sites serve articles that are not so "interesting" to read. Even though serious efforts (like this) are taken to make books that are already in public domain freely available to people in digital format, relatively new and fresh information is blocked by subscriptions, pay per view etc. Also attempts like Facebook's Internet.org (FreeBasics) will add another layer in between people and these sites. If you have to pay Rs. 200 every month for a full-fledged Internet connection while FreeBasics comes for Rs. 0 (I won't say it is free of cost! It costs your privacy and freedom of choice), most people will choose to stick with the few sites provided by Facebook. As far as Whatsapp is working, who cares to do a data recharge?
4. The Other Sites
The rest of the Internet is nothing but the noise you hear in the market. Absolute democracy! Everyone has their say! From flat-earthers to neo-Nazi racists. All are given equal opportunity to write and spread their "message" to the world. Whatsapp messages, Youtube videos, Facebook updates and retweeted blog links can enlighten us on GM diet, while nobody cares to check what it is actually. Even some widely read news sites publish unethical articles (see example below) and distance themselves from questioning by a lame disclaimer that the opinion expressed is the writer's and not of the publisher's. Again the genuineidiocracy democracy of the Internet wins! abchomeopathy.com has Alexa rank of 72,613 and quackwatch.org has a rank of 193,968. You know what it means right? People at abchomeopathy.com are 267% correct than people at quackwatch.org. If 100 blogs say that vaccines contain poisonous chemicals and cause autism and 3 or 4 sites say vaccines are needed to prevent diseases like polio or mumps, then surely those 3 or 4 sites are run by corporate funded doctors who have no idea about vaccines while those blogs are run by highly concerned citizens who are rightly qualified in UFOlogy or Tarot reading.
This article from The Hindu (Tamil version) claims that a single Siddha medicine can cure diseases cold, diabetes, cancer and AIDS. How can a Newspaper like The Hindu publish an article like this without moral responsibility?
What’s My Problem?
People are choosing what they want to believe and it is their choice and their life. How can you say what you believe is correct and what I believe is wrong? What is your problem? Do you know whatever you say is 100% correct? Nobody is 100% correct. Unless you experience it yourself, you won't believe.
These are the usual response people give when confronted that what they believe is pseudoscience or hoax.
An engineering graduate believes that a pulse check by a naturopath is equally valid as an ECG and a glass of coriander juice is equally good as angioplasty. He even said that former is better than later as it is fully natural, safe and without side-effects. You don't see a problem?
A person with pain due to gall stones ignores it and goes for acupuncture to treat the pain. He is rushed to ICU with severe jaundice. No problem yet?
A project manager enrolls his son in mid-brain activation class for a hefty sum of money against his son's wish to join Karate or Swimming. Still no problem?
An MBA gold-medalist spending Rs. 8,000 a month on red-mushroom powder and Spirulina capsules and genuinely believes that it can cure any sort of disease. Not a problem at all!
Magnetic necklace, pyramid schemes, water therapy, energy treatment, de-tox diet, positive vibrations, vaasthu fish, snake oil, faith healing all are real. Thousands of people are saying it worked for them. So I am just trying it out. Nothing is wrong in trying that. If it fails, I may lose some money or time. But what if it works? And we should fight the "leftist conspiracy" to infect our children with evil ideas like evolution, germ theory of disease, astronomy, physics, chemistry, history, biology and English grammar (their r grammer Nazis r8? Dey cn’t evn tolrite ma Whatsapp msg!). Also we should fight the right wing corporates who are trying to kill the people by vaccination, anti-biotics, fertilizers, cellphone radiation, chem-trails, GM food etc. We should rely on our UFO masters, spirits of nature, kundalini energy, water memory, cosmic waves and organic foods to save us!
Absolutely no problem! Go ahead!
Solution?
What is the solution? Am I the expert to ask? Not so. But here is my opinion. Researches, studies and serious work of science, history and politics should be made cheap or free of cost for the public. Government and rational intellects should encourage people to read and share that information. Sharing, derivative works, collaboration etc. should be encouraged rather than being met with lawsuits in patent courts. On the other hand, people who knowingly circulate unscientific and unethical ideas, misinformation, rumors etc. should be banned and punished. Yes. I hear you crying that I am for censorship and against freedom of speech. But for your kind information, spreading misinformation about vaccine or endorsing a home-made cure for cancer is harmful. It is not freedom of speech. It has direct impact on people who are foolish enough to fall for it. Lives are lost. Damages done in irreversible ways. Yet these people are walking free on pretext of free speech! Scientific community with the help of volunteers should set up a universal review panel to review and rate sites based on the content. Again, these may result in censorship. But we should think a way to make it impartial and honest system rather than giving every retarded view an equal opportunity to corrupt the minds of public. If there are sources with 95% truth and 20% truth, both are logically partial truth. But practically they are not equally valid. It is our duty to ensure the 95% truth grows to 99.999% and 20% truth (80% false) obscured from the public. Long live democracy! Long live freedom of speech!
What is a reliable source for any information? Anybody with an Internet connection can write anything they want. Even this blog is one such thing. I have no qualification to write on any subject with authority save for some "public static void main". But still I am writing. So if a thousand blogs say that something is correct and only few "unknown" sites say the opposite, democratically, is it not correct, because that is majority? Is truth is what we feel and experience or something that is proven beyond doubt? Is truth is what works for me and may not for you? Is there no ultimate truth that is objective instead of subjective "feelings" or "experiences"? Is that coffee is hot for me and cold for you? But is there not a thermometer that says the coffee is 67C? What if someone sounds like a genuine skeptic while questioning the caliberation of the thermometer itself? I have seen people questioning moon landing and vaccines like true skeptics. Does questioning something makes you a skeptic while questioning something else makes you an idiot?
People who believe Coco-Cola and Mentos can produce cyanide without a question suddenly start to ask millions of question if you say that it won't. People who don't even have a doubt that solar eclipse causes birth defects become "Doubting Thomases" when you say that mercury in shark is harmful for lactating mother and label you as a foreign agent who questions their native wisdom! The source for the Coke-Mentos story may be a blog written from Brazil and the source for mercury in shark is FDA's own website. It doesn't matter. Both are websites. And some even argue that it is better to trust the Brazillian blogger as he has no financial interest than the FDA site which is influenced by corporate lobby! So whom can we trust?
History of Writing
Back in the old days, people who were educated alone could read and write. And only a minority of the educated minority wrote books. Majority of the population never had a chance to read something or express their ideas to a wider audience. Hand written copies of books were costly to produce, hard to maintain and almost out of reach for the public. Some countries allowed only the rich elites to possess books. Even worse, in some other countries only those people who were born in to particular castes were allowed to read and write.
Then came the printing press which allowed mass production of books. Books became cheaper and were within the reach of public. At the same time, industrial revolution and political changes allowed majority to get education. As literacy rate grew along with the increase in number of books, we saw a boom in creativity, inventions, discoveries and critical thinking. But there was a problem. Even though almost anyone could read a book, not everyone was able to publish a book. You can have your own manuscripts on your desk. Else you can even print a copy for yourself. But hitting market was out of question.
Even today, to reach a good number of audiences, you need a publisher. And the publishers lay out certain rules and restrictions to the buyers as well as to the writers! Writers are asked to surrender the copyright to publishers. Readers are restricted from creating derivative works. Even reselling of books and photocopying are becoming "offences" in the eyes of corporate publishers. On one side, quality books are becoming costlier and costlier. Also on the other side, whoever has money can publish anything they want. The books cover, paper quality and print, everything will look exactly like an encyclopedia from a renowned university, yet the content will be no better than "Weekly World News". On the third side, rise of Internet provides costless (apart from what you pay for data) information. Again in Internet, most of the serious researches and information are pay-walled, and anyone with a connection can write anything (they don't even need the power of money!) the picture is becoming very complex.
Let me categorize them vaguely.
1. Really Good Books
These are books that are product of serious research or study or skill. They are genuine works and they can be verified scientifically. They are written by scientists and researchers who invest their time, money and effort on their fields. These books are meant to be consumed by public and increase the awareness, ignite discussions and pave way for improvements or rectification of existing ideas. But the sad facts about the books are as follows. They cost more. They are "dry" and uninteresting for general public and most people seldom know the titles of these books! Add to this the threats and violent opposition to such books which dare to question existing beliefs or status quo!
2. Bad Books that Resembles Good Books
Majority of books sold in railway stations or book fairs etc. are of this category. They have polished covers, colorful photographs, shiny paper, good quality print, cost you a fortune and authored by a famous writer/activist you often see on TV or in movie credits. They resemble the "good books" in every aspect from ISBN to Best Seller endorsements. But they are nothing more than self-help crap, new-age rap, astrology bullshit, biased history batshit or mumbo-jumbo on any subject. Go to any book shop. You can find at least a dozen of books on Homeopathy but you can't get a book that explains Homeopathy is fake! As the free market neutrality and voting-with-your-wallet democracy "naturally selects" the "fittest for survival", you have books that endorse Homeopathy, Crystal Therapy, Astrology etc. widely and cheaply available, while a good book on astro-physics or bio-chemistry is out of stock (never been in stock) or out of budget!
3. Good Sites
Enter the Internet! There are some sites which are actually continuation of international science journals and serious magazines with genuine journalism from the printing era. They have made their way in to the Internet. But most of them are pay-walled. Even some of them are not pay-walled but they are unpopular among masses. Again, these sites serve articles that are not so "interesting" to read. Even though serious efforts (like this) are taken to make books that are already in public domain freely available to people in digital format, relatively new and fresh information is blocked by subscriptions, pay per view etc. Also attempts like Facebook's Internet.org (FreeBasics) will add another layer in between people and these sites. If you have to pay Rs. 200 every month for a full-fledged Internet connection while FreeBasics comes for Rs. 0 (I won't say it is free of cost! It costs your privacy and freedom of choice), most people will choose to stick with the few sites provided by Facebook. As far as Whatsapp is working, who cares to do a data recharge?
4. The Other Sites
The rest of the Internet is nothing but the noise you hear in the market. Absolute democracy! Everyone has their say! From flat-earthers to neo-Nazi racists. All are given equal opportunity to write and spread their "message" to the world. Whatsapp messages, Youtube videos, Facebook updates and retweeted blog links can enlighten us on GM diet, while nobody cares to check what it is actually. Even some widely read news sites publish unethical articles (see example below) and distance themselves from questioning by a lame disclaimer that the opinion expressed is the writer's and not of the publisher's. Again the genuine
This article from The Hindu (Tamil version) claims that a single Siddha medicine can cure diseases cold, diabetes, cancer and AIDS. How can a Newspaper like The Hindu publish an article like this without moral responsibility?
 |
| Screen grab from the The Hindu's article titled "தொற்றுநோய்களை விரட்டும் மகா சுதர்சன மாத்திரை" |
What’s My Problem?
People are choosing what they want to believe and it is their choice and their life. How can you say what you believe is correct and what I believe is wrong? What is your problem? Do you know whatever you say is 100% correct? Nobody is 100% correct. Unless you experience it yourself, you won't believe.
These are the usual response people give when confronted that what they believe is pseudoscience or hoax.
An engineering graduate believes that a pulse check by a naturopath is equally valid as an ECG and a glass of coriander juice is equally good as angioplasty. He even said that former is better than later as it is fully natural, safe and without side-effects. You don't see a problem?
A person with pain due to gall stones ignores it and goes for acupuncture to treat the pain. He is rushed to ICU with severe jaundice. No problem yet?
A project manager enrolls his son in mid-brain activation class for a hefty sum of money against his son's wish to join Karate or Swimming. Still no problem?
An MBA gold-medalist spending Rs. 8,000 a month on red-mushroom powder and Spirulina capsules and genuinely believes that it can cure any sort of disease. Not a problem at all!
Magnetic necklace, pyramid schemes, water therapy, energy treatment, de-tox diet, positive vibrations, vaasthu fish, snake oil, faith healing all are real. Thousands of people are saying it worked for them. So I am just trying it out. Nothing is wrong in trying that. If it fails, I may lose some money or time. But what if it works? And we should fight the "leftist conspiracy" to infect our children with evil ideas like evolution, germ theory of disease, astronomy, physics, chemistry, history, biology and English grammar (their r grammer Nazis r8? Dey cn’t evn tolrite ma Whatsapp msg!). Also we should fight the right wing corporates who are trying to kill the people by vaccination, anti-biotics, fertilizers, cellphone radiation, chem-trails, GM food etc. We should rely on our UFO masters, spirits of nature, kundalini energy, water memory, cosmic waves and organic foods to save us!
Absolutely no problem! Go ahead!
Solution?
What is the solution? Am I the expert to ask? Not so. But here is my opinion. Researches, studies and serious work of science, history and politics should be made cheap or free of cost for the public. Government and rational intellects should encourage people to read and share that information. Sharing, derivative works, collaboration etc. should be encouraged rather than being met with lawsuits in patent courts. On the other hand, people who knowingly circulate unscientific and unethical ideas, misinformation, rumors etc. should be banned and punished. Yes. I hear you crying that I am for censorship and against freedom of speech. But for your kind information, spreading misinformation about vaccine or endorsing a home-made cure for cancer is harmful. It is not freedom of speech. It has direct impact on people who are foolish enough to fall for it. Lives are lost. Damages done in irreversible ways. Yet these people are walking free on pretext of free speech! Scientific community with the help of volunteers should set up a universal review panel to review and rate sites based on the content. Again, these may result in censorship. But we should think a way to make it impartial and honest system rather than giving every retarded view an equal opportunity to corrupt the minds of public. If there are sources with 95% truth and 20% truth, both are logically partial truth. But practically they are not equally valid. It is our duty to ensure the 95% truth grows to 99.999% and 20% truth (80% false) obscured from the public. Long live democracy! Long live freedom of speech!
No comments:
Post a Comment