google vs knowledge
Options
Dupac
Members, Writer Posts: 68,365 ✭✭✭✭✭
according to plato....socrates didn't like writing... he felt philosophical debates should essentially be "freestyled" without having to refer to things you wrote down on the topic before hand....
i saw earlier kai and BA beefing on some "i bet you had to google that ? ? "
while funny....
it made me think.....
how do people feel about google and intelligence....
does someone's knowledge on a subject lack if they have to google their point before making it?
or does the only opinion that matters one that was previously stored in ones head prior to the debate??
thoughts?
i saw earlier kai and BA beefing on some "i bet you had to google that ? ? "
while funny....
it made me think.....
how do people feel about google and intelligence....
does someone's knowledge on a subject lack if they have to google their point before making it?
or does the only opinion that matters one that was previously stored in ones head prior to the debate??
thoughts?
Comments
-
i made a thread about this a year or so ago...
about google professors....
repeating what someone else wrote without the proper background will always make someone look stupid -
http://community.allhiphop.com/discussion/362428/am-i-the-only-one-that-hate-these-? -google-educated-?
http://community.allhiphop.com/discussion/459857/google-and-wikipedia-got-? -thinking-they-smart/p1 -
Intelligence and knowledge are two different things. People put too much weight on how much random knowledge another person may have. Unless you're going on Jeopardy or Who Wants to be a Millionaire, that's not really all that important. Intelligence on the other hand is important because it determines how well you'll be able to make use of whatever knowledge you do have.
Think about doctors. You don't want a doctor that memorized Grey's Anatomy and can regurgitate a bunch of anatomy facts on call. You want a doctor that's smart enough to logically step through the clues given and make the right conclusion. If he has to consult a medical book in the process doesn't matter as long as he can intelligently put all the pieces of the puzzle together correctly. -
Dont really care. If me and you is having a intellectual debate I dont care where you are getting your info from as long as your point is valid
-
Great question.Google is very good but a lot of information is not online yet like vinyl.Real knowledge can be made on both.There´s some stuff you can see on google that you can´t see it physically like mummys and ancient objects.
-
I google the spelling of word, I know what they mean, but sometimes I don't know how they're spelled.
-
Dont really care. If me and you is having a intellectual debate I dont care where you are getting your info from as long as your point is valid
but shouldnt you be able to back up your validated point -
Unless youre a specialist on a particular subject, I don't expect people to be walking encyclopedias. So Google, or whatever reference you have to back up your opinion, is good long as the information is correct.
The real problem here is that people are too insecure about being wrong about something. Folks be attacking a Google search to save face. A person with sense would just show the Googled info can be challenged, then the two would exchange info, either agreeing or agreeing to disagree in the end. -
The problem with Googling ? is there is so much information out there its easy to get caught up in phony ? .
People believe the dumbest ? and use madeupmonkeyshit.com as a source.
But Googling can be powerful if you know how to do it. Knowing random factoids doesn't really mean ? in the long run. -
Most people don't understand how algorithms and Web crawlers work when Googling information.
Hell, the average Joe probably doesn't know that Wikipedia is a crowdsourced platform, wherein information can be edited by any fool with a phone & wifi.
The majority of these SJW's have obtained their Bachelors degree from the University of Google. Get these muhfuckas offline with no Internet access and they'll tell you horizontal is up and down, and vertical is side to side.
There's no substitute for READING BOOKS to obtain knowledge. Objective research should be the follow up after reading anything. We have this "information in sound-bites" culture now so I'm very wary of people who solely use Google as an information hub. -
jus cause you can recite something dont mean you know what you're talking about
-
2stepz_ahead wrote: »
Yea no doubt. What i mean, lets say i say A=b, and you say no A=c. Once this happens it is my assumption that you know enough about the subject to make the claim, and then, while debating if you go on google to get info to further prove your point im cool with that.
But if I say A=b and you know nothing about the subject and just talk out your ass and say A=c and then do all your knowledge there and then on google then you should go ? yourself. -
I think the problem is less going to google and more knowing what to use from google. If you go to google and find a vetted paper that supports your point, chances are you knew some of what you were talking about before because you have to do a little searching for that. However, if you come back with some random website from some pseudo-scholar, your viewpoint is probably worthless.
-
Google will eventually take reading away feom later generation's. It was a twilight zone episode on something similar to this. If you have instant knowledge on hand a lot of people won't read or look it up on their own to find the answers.
I think that was The Outer Limits. The savior in the end was the dude that everybody thought was a dunce because he was incompatible with the uplink and had to read to get his info. -
Google is an excellent source, but people put too much emphasis on websites and do not do enough research. They don't even research those they have sited. Google Scholar is an excellent way to obtain scholarly works and .edu are great avenues to reading information, but you want to get those google books.
-
@kingblaze84 is a Google ? . ? don't even bother to check sources.
-
i learned alot from google i formed my own conclusions though
but people dont even google thats the sad part people just spew ignorance without research -
The_Jackal wrote: »@kingblaze84 is a Google ? . ? don't even bother to check sources.
Leave dude alone, the bias scholarship is a powerful tool @The_Jackal -
Ehhh doesn't matter to me. A good debate is a good debate.
The only downside to difference of opinion are the ppl that disagree just to disagree without seeing the logic in someone's retort or refusing to allow themselves to look at things from a perspective other than their own. -
Depends on the topic. Google is just used to find information. You can also Google facts such as the correct spelling and definition of words or events that took place. The problem comes from people using none credible information to use in their arguments.
-
full length mink vs faux fur..
u can tell the google geeks.. thats not a sign of intelligence to me.. and half the time they sound like idiots..
then u can tell when someone genuinely knows what they're talkin about..
thats why if its somethin im not to familiar wit i jus shut the ? up. lol
more people on this site should do that..
BUT ..? google! hahahaha -
I don't go through life actively trying to correct people, I just want the truth... If I don't know something I Google it, WTF is wrong with?
-
Well, there're really three things being talked about here -- Reference, Knowledge, and Intelligence.
Google is a great tool, but you've got to be smart enough to critically evaluate what you read on the internet. Today, in the Information Age, not using Google, esp if you're not sure about something, would be stupid. And ftr, if I don't know enough/anything about a topic, but I go read about it, critically evaluate that info, and come to a conclusion -- Then now I know about that topic. Period. No way to discredit that..
Knowledge is invaluable, true -- But how/why you know something matters. You really don't have to be smart to be knowledgable, tbh. There's learning from experience (making mistakes), and learning from other people's experiences, the latter being a better attempt at life, arguably.. Smart people ? up less.
Intelligence, raw brain power should be self explanatory.
But ? always be too quick to position check another person, which is immature. If what a person says is true, then how/why they know doesn't challenge their point. You can make a case for how well they know something (if you want to be petty -- again, childish) but facts are facts. -
*shrugs* as long as you know wtf you're talking about.
For the record I wasn't getting on Kai because she may have googled something to find out a detailed answer, I was teasing her cuz it read like a google page. I also didn't imply she was a ? @DWO -
Well, there're really three things being talked about here -- Reference, Knowledge, and Intelligence.
Google is a great tool, but you've got to be smart enough to critically evaluate what you read on the internet. Today, in the Information Age, not using Google, esp if you're not sure about something, would be stupid. And ftr, if I don't know enough/anything about a topic, but I go read about it, critically evaluate that info, and come to a conclusion -- Then now I know about that topic. Period. No way to discredit that..
Knowledge is invaluable, true -- But how/why you know something matters. You really don't have to be smart to be knowledgable, tbh. There's learning from experience (making mistakes), and learning from other people's experiences, the latter being a better attempt at life, arguably.. Smart people ? up less.
Intelligence, raw brain power should be self explanatory.
But ? always be too quick to position check another person, which is immature. If what a person says is true, then how/why they know doesn't challenge their point. You can make a case for how well they know something (if you want to be petty -- again, childish) but facts are facts.
This
