Stephen Snow wrote: > Taran, > > Data is not a bad thing; it also is not every thing. Empiricism does not make > for truth anymore than feeling makes for empiricism. [Was Decartes correct of > did he just have it backward? Maybe instead of I think therefore I am, it is > I am, therefore I think...and because I think I *know* that I am!] > Data is not good or bad. The interpretation of data can be good or bad. Data simply *is*, it sits there. So I'm wondering where the data is sitting; we don't seem to have sufficient for good or bad interpretation. > It takes a combination. Just as you say you need data, you cite a quixotic > novelist as your own "data". That's not a criticism, it is merely a > reflection fo the way we all are -- needing both "facts" and "knowing," the > latter of which often is other than or beyond facts or empirical data. > I did not quote Vonnegut as 'data', but I added his quotation as a balance. Vonnegut's work is not popular because people find him disagreeable... so maybe he was onto something when he wrote that. I cannot reject his remarks so easily because of that: further, recent experiences in my own life allow for some support of that. Be happy that I did not quote Vonnegut's reference to a US mailbox as a blue bullfrog that ate his mail and said 'ribbit'. ;-) > Now, of course, data matter. And there is a dearth of solid data in many > areas of the electronic world. And from a data perspective, then, we can't > really "know" what works or to what depth. (It raises a huge question about > the actual validity of ANY online mechanisms, doesbn't it? About all we truly > know is that a lot of people [20% of 6 billion is still quite a bunch in my > limited thinking] use the heck out of this stuff and they use it in their own > ways and for their own purposes, which often aren't OUR purposes or even > purposes we believe are "useful" or "valuable" or, even, "right." > 20% of 6 billion is abysmal in my way of thinking, for cultural reasons and otherwise. Perhaps that is a data point to consider in our different perspectives.
And as far as the 20% of people 'using the heck out of this stuff' - no, the 20% is a reference as to how many people have access. The frequency and vigor of their use are not in the data. Slashdot.org, in 2004/2005, was seeing 3-4 million hits per day. But those web site statistics do not reflect individual users... as an example. > What was it Sam Clemmens once wrote? There are three kinds of lies: "lies, > damned lies and statistics." So it isn't just data but also the quality of > the data -- how it was gathered, how it was conceived (!), how it was > interpreted -- that matters, as well. > Agreed. > As long as I have been actively involved in the online world, and I'd put > that right at about 20 years, I have believed (felt, sensed -- not known) > that no one really knows what is going on with all of the online "things." As > soon as someone says he/she does know, I am immediately skeptical. Companies > often do this: they love to prognosticate value or usage or some certain > future because it might benefit them in some way. The truth -- or better yet, > my belief -- is that we all are still touching separate parts of the elephant > and describing it as the whole. > Agreed. So how do we substantiate, in the context of this discussion, whether the digital divide and human health have a positive or negative effect on each other? -- Taran Rampersad Presently in: San Fernando, Trinidad [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.knowprose.com http://www.your2ndplace.com Pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/knowprose/ "Criticize by creating." — Michelangelo "The present is theirs; the future, for which I really worked, is mine." - Nikola Tesla _______________________________________________ DIGITALDIVIDE mailing list [email protected] http://digitaldivide.net/mailman/listinfo/digitaldivide To unsubscribe, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the body of the message.
