It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Internet & The Information Crisis

page: 3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 07:00 PM
Take this as you will, this might be slightly off topic, but I think it's something funny that fits in with current subject of truth and knowledge, who to believe and who not to.

In 1962 there was an episode of "The Twilight Zone" titled "Hocus-Pocus and Frisby" Which featured a man who lied about everything. He would say that he was apart of the world biggest events, that he was a inventor, war vet, scientist, genius, ect. ect. Well, all the while, there were a group of aliens who were unfamiliar with the ability to lie. They were searching for the world's highest intellectual person, someone who they though would properly represent the human race.

Well, they found this guy, and thought everything he said to be true. Naturally, they figured he must have been the guy they were looking for. So they took him back to their spaceship, and told them why they got him. Then they revealed he was going to be put in a cage for others to see. (If memory serves me correct.)

Now, the moral of this story is either, don't make yourself look better then what you are, because when you are put on the pedestal you might not be able to sit correctly. Or it's don't believe everything you hear, see and read.

Anyway, I just thought it was kind of funny, and we essentially have an entire system (the internet) filled with people like this. I wonder if aliens were to abduct people on the basis of things they read on the internet who they would get?

*chin rub*

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 07:29 PM

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Since nobody answered, I´ll ask again:

How important is truth to you?

And if its important:Why?

If its not important: Why not?

How important is truth to me? ... It is probably the single-most important thing in my life.... Whether we are talking about love, history, reasons for events, relationships, or just information in general, ONLY the truth will do.

To act on a lie, to believe in something that you know to be untrue (kid yourself), to be deceived by lies, all have been responsible in one way or another for just about every ounce of misery experienced by humanity throught it's history.

TRUTH is everything... but... when people talk about 'truth' they usually mean a truth, or point of view acceptable to them.

so... the question then becomes. Whose truth

Two examples:

Example one:
Talk to an Israeli about Gaza ... hear their truth as they see it
Talk to a Palestinian about Gaza ... hear their truth as they see it.

Which version of the truth is the truth... Their positions will mostly be diametrically opposed. They can't BOTH be telling the truth, can they?...

Well, From their point of view they are. The Israeli will tell you the Palestinian is telling lies and spouting propaganda, and vice versa... the Palestinian will accuse the Israeli of the same thing.

So where is the truth?... for most people it will be whichever side they sympathise more with. For some the truth will be that both sides are behaving like kids (who unfortunately and lethally are armed to the teeth) and they should both grow up.... For others, the truth will be whatever preconceptions they bring to the scenario

Example two
In this thread Serbsta says:

What of physical evidence, possibly left by the Egyptians themselves in recording the history of their nation and Zep Tepi? The Turin Papyrus contains what is called the Turin King List which lists all the royal lineages of Egypt, from Zep Tepi (the Golden Age of the Gods), to the dynasties that followed. The damaged papyrus was found by the famous explorer Drovetti and is thought to date to the time of Ramses II. It is divided into 11 columns and hieroglyphically depicts the following:

- Column 1 — Gods of Ancient Egypt
- Column 2 — Rows 1-10 Spirits and mythical kings (Shemshu Hor, etc.)
- Column 2 — Rows 11-25 (Dynasties 1-2)
- Column 3 — Rows 1-25 (Dynasties 2-5)

… up until the 17th dynasty.

Was there indeed a period in the distant past where these believed to be ‘God’s’ actually ruled the lands? Were these the human Gods that taught them the knowledge of architecture, agriculture, religion, astrology and even passed on their own language, the hieroglyphs? Could the currently unaccepted timeframe which puts the origins of the Egyptians prior to 25,000 B.C. serve as an explanation to the sudden expanse of the Egyptian civilization, fully equipped with a complex set of religious beliefs?

The current conclusion is simple, yet so ignorant. The Turin King List is seen as recorded history, but the ‘age of the God’s’ is placed under that petty little word, myth. Why?

Why indeed? ... Perhaps it's because in most archeologists reality (truth as they see it) Gods have to be mythological beings concocted by the ancients to express and symbolise the creation, elements, war, love, wine, etc... Kings however are entirely an acceptable premise.

so ... The Gods become myth, the kings history... despite the fact that nowhere within the source they are using to come to their conclusions does it say 'This bit is historical myth, this bit is historical fact.

In other words, their truth is based on the preconceptions they bring to the table.

At the end of the day, whatever you read, be it online, in a library book, in a newspaper, is always going to be coloured by the preconceptions of those who wrote it. By the time you add your own preconceptions, the truth as you see it (and pass on) will be a little different again.

Always question everything you read, but always keep an open mind to all possibilities, and try to see as many different viewpoints as possible. Do this and you'll still get coloured truth, but it might be a truth worth considering and perhaps as close to 'truth' as you're ever going to get..

[edit on 10/1/2010 by Dagar]

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Skyfloating
With the age of Internet, the dissemination of Information has become more democratic. But has it become more true?

This is a question bred from the couch in the age of television. IMHO, the posing of the topic suggests a yearning for a bridge from the tv age into the Internet Age that would carry along with it some trusted someone or something who could order it all for us in network fashion: i.e. here's the "real" news and here's the "Entertainment".

No, my friend, democracy in its ideal is not for the lazy. In its ideal, the very best that can occur is a system ensuring the freedom of entry of the supply of information. You are the shopper, you are the decerner. It is hard work, isn't it, to sort out truth from fiction?

"Has it become more true", you ask? IMHO, this is the wrong question. Is there more information? Is there any barrier(s) to information coming in? Is there any barrier to certain types of information coming in? Is there any barrier to you sorting it out yourself or organizing as you see fit to try and convince others of your view? In sum, is there freedom of information and organization of information?

These are the important questions to ask in my opinion. And compared to tv or delivery of a daily newspaper, I believe the Internet to be a vastly superior development on all fronts you name.

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:21 PM
For those who made the point that the same could be said for books... Kudos!

Books require more vetting then a blog but they too are, as said, fallible. To claim a report or professional journal or history book or what have you is more trustworthy of accepting without question then an essay or report posted here is not, in my oppinion, valid.

History is written by the winners and many people who write about history or science had considerations outside of the unbias truth that will colour the work.

A good example is to take any politican you have interest in, or maybe a king or even a country. Whatever it is thats trikes your fancy, read five books on it. The variance in emphasis on aspects of the history and how or why they were important and what they affected will differ.

Information the knowledge it can impart is more valuable than anything else on the planet. Its shaped the fortunes or demise of people, corporations, countries, empires, kings everything in the world. And its value for aiding or manipulating is very well understood and throughout human history, the use of information has become an art.

Their is nothing said or written that is infallible as no one person could be considered infallible.

Language itself is a huge part of it. The study of language and the history of information and the systems developed to utilize it is fascinating and illuminating but again, you can read a hundred books on the topics and each will tell you something slightly different.

Great thread OP!


posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:29 PM
we had this problem before the interet too. books

personally i dont think it's a huge problem that everyone get their view across no matter what they are afilliated to. it helps us better understand the world and the people in it.

edit: it dark spelling bad..

[edit on 10-1-2010 by MR BOB]

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:33 PM
We are now faced with the same problems the CIA & FBI must confront: we have access to SO much information that it's impossible to fact check it all. Yes, with effort we can tell the good from the bad, but there's no efficient way to do so.

What we need is more experts.

If there were more experts participating online, there would be more fact checking, simply by virtue of the fact that experts like to be right, and they usually back up their assertions with facts & references, because they know them off the top of their heads.

Ok, so how do we get more experts online?
We need to become experts ourselves, in narrow fields.
Then we need to be active on the net, verifying things in our field.
This is definitely not easy -- there is no easy fix for the information deluge we're in... but I think the best next step is taking personal responsibility.

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:51 PM
reply to post by Skyfloating

Brilliant Question Sky Floating...

My answer is this.

Every attempt at communication, blogpost, entertainment, your post, my response, etc is tied to an agenda. End of story.

Everyone has an agenda, and all information is suspect. Problems result when we, the reader, assume that the author of the information is a higher authority on our sense of truth than we are.

My wife, college educated, could never understand how I could approach any of the authors I read as peers. She was taught some form of higher respect for "great minds" than for her own inner great mind. In school, the teacher was the authority to her.

Not for me... all authors, great and small are humans just like me. None are infallible. I like to crawl up in their brains and figure out WHY they are communicating whatever it is to me in the first place. St Augustine for example, wrote tomes about sexual desire and it's ill effect on mankind. Dig deeper and you find out that's because he was a recovering sex addict! Even that last phrase carries the sense of agenda behind it.

So back on topic...

1. Never have more respect for any author than you do yourself.

2. Never believe that you have found the absolute truth, but seek it diligently.

3. Always understand that everyone, including yourself, could be completely wrong.

4. Seek first to understand the motive before you attempt to understand the message.

And last but not least...

"If you don't know the history of the author, you don't know what you're reading... If you don't know the history of the author, you don't know what you've read!" -KRS-One

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:52 PM

Originally posted by DizzyDayDream

Redoubt, what do you make of this response to you previous post, from Nietsche:

"Assuming that truth is a woman - what then? Is there not reason to suspect that all philosophers, in so far as they were dogmatists, have known very little about this woman? ... One thing is certain: she has not let herself be charmed."

In response, another quote:

"My advice to you is get married: if you find a good wife you'll be happy; if not, you'll become a philosopher."
- Socrates

Truth? Maybe philosophy... the pining for truths unrealized, is what we do when that woman eludes us.


Edit: ad lib

[edit on 10-1-2010 by redoubt]

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 08:53 PM
Everyone has there own perspective of there reality. When certain things are interesting to a individual, our mind make a choice whether we want to believe it or not. Because of the way we have been programed we make our choice.

Does it really matter. Its all an illusion anyway.

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 09:14 PM
The question on how important is truth is so important that nobody can underestimate it...Here are just a few reasons why...The fact that we are in a war because of religious values means that we should know the truth about why Islam is such a large religion, why it has such a hold on its followers, and why it is believed so that these followers will commit both murder and suicide because of it...Is Mohammed a genuine prophet? Did he get true information? Do Islams know how to read and write Arabic? Can they interpret the Koran properly? Is it in the interest of the rest of the world who are considered infidels to these same Islamic followers, Muslims, to know whether to consider them as a danger and a threat to them? Is Mohammed correct? Did he really communicate with the archangel Gabriel for 23 years as I once read? Why do his followers believe such a story?

Yes, the truth of all of this is so important that it must be exposed. The same can be said of Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, and all the scores of other religious beliefs as well. But so far, Muslim faith is the only faith that does stress the need to take up arms and defend itself against its enemies...So the truth will set us free, maybe free from the fear of another student uprising trying to suppress what the rest of us value in life...

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 09:17 PM
reply to post by redoubt

haha love it redoubt.

so to summarise...

Assuming truth is a woman, get married and be happy with your woman, or become a philospher.. hahaha brilliant.

...wait... somethings not right here that could be interpretred in various ways, given its context of our previous posts. So here's what i intended it to mean:

Assuming truth is a woman, we should always be seeking to marry this elusive woman, but until that day comes we shall remain lowly philosophers. And according to that logic we can never reach why seek truth... hmmm maybe because its the most effective form of progression. Constantly striving for perfection, is certainly more likely to increase your chances of achieving it. and i guess the same could be said of truth.

And HunkaHUNKA best post of this thread so far. star for you sir.

Edit because i didn't respond in enough detail:

These two point (# 2 and 3) seem to be relevant to my post here:

2. Never believe that you have found the absolute truth, but seek it diligently.

3. Always understand that everyone, including yourself, could be completely wrong.

- HunkaHunka

I think those are two very wise points, infact they remind of something Hegel once described in the form of a simple triagle (oh god no not the pyramids again XD - jokx)

For thosae that might no immediate see the link here, you strat with thesis (an idea), then when you realise whats wrong with that idea you create its antithesis, then from the thesis and antithesis you get a synthesis, which then becomes a new thesis... make sense? Its circular, but the point is to never stop refining your own ideas and beleifs.

[edit on 10-1-2010 by DizzyDayDream]

[edit on 10-1-2010 by DizzyDayDream]

[edit on 10-1-2010 by DizzyDayDream]

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 09:18 PM

Originally posted by Skyfloating

How important is truth to you?

And if its important:Why?

Of course truth is important, isn't it? But truth is a subjective term, and in being so it becomes less about universal validity and more about perspective and perception. Naturally you conclude that there is no such thing as empirical truth and that the romantic view of the concept in reality lacks any integrity at all. Accepted 'truth' (recorded history, etc.) is merely a collection of agreed upon (for the most part) stories, loosely dispersed but connecting only through minuscule similarities.

Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it.
-Andre Gide

Ever wonder what that quote actually means? I wondered, for a long time I might add and the answer is actually quite simple.

Those who claim to have found the truth are simply standing by their own perception. Perception of course, can be tainted by a number of elements, hence every persona's truth should be doubted, if not mistrusted at all. But those who are seeking the truth would eventually realize that truth doesn't exist and that any version of it is simply a story told from one perception. Once one realizes this, their truth gains the property of being unaffected by egotism and therefore making their truth a better attempt at creating a balanced view. That's how I see it anyway.

So if it doesn't exist, why should it be important? That's my question to you Sky.

[edit on 10/1/2010 by serbsta]

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 10:28 PM
reply to post by Skyfloating

You have to be awake, or it is impossible to see the agenda.

You have to already know what is going on in a particular situation or you will not know whether you are reading disinfo, info, or BS.

You must get directly to the root of who is running the show and their agenda. When you find an article that follows that agenda, you know what it is.

When you find an article that goes against the agenda of TPTB, you must scrutinize the legitimacy of that article, to see if it is disinfo, that is an attempt to discredit a group that opposes TPTB.

For example:
Hal Turner was a shill for TPTB. He would take the stance of the opposition (NAU whistle blowers, Ron Paul supporters, 9/11 truthers) and intermingle it with extreme racism and hatred, thus discrediting all three opposition groups at the same time.

I used the same tactic in a recent thread, to make the man made global warming people look silly. ( I did disclose what I was doing).

But it is a good example of this particular tactic.

posted on Jan, 10 2010 @ 11:21 PM
belive what you want, but when spouting it as actual fact, its important to check facts with unbias fact checking sites and mediums not caught up in whatever may be benefitting from an angle. If your reading about american politics, check with with cspan or perhaps the bbc.

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 01:04 AM
reply to post by downtown436

that link you posted is f-ing ridiculous, why would you make a thread like that, then proudly put a link for it here!?

You actually disgust me. Since when was it okay to ridicule people who care about the impact humans have on the enviroment!? Sure there might not be conclusive evidence to show we are contributing to global warming or climate change in general, but to suggest we should carry on behaving in this f-cked up irresponsable way as a civilisation is absurd. Pollution is not okay, its rancid, and it destroys eco systems along with all the other # we dump on the land we dont inhabit. Its not even about the climate change issue for me, its about our repsonsability as the most intelligent species, to care for our home - this planet! and all its delicate subtle life supporting eviroments we so proudly demolish for the sake of consumerism.

For all this talk of truth, you seem to be the least informed, parading as the most informed. Serious question here, do you have shares in an oil company or something? Talk about hidden agendas. geez. Can someone clarify things for me, is ATS becoming an Anti-Enviromentalist site?

[edit on 11-1-2010 by DizzyDayDream]

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 01:31 AM
reply to post by redoubt

So that is why Socrates is considered a philosopher...Xantippe! thanks for the info..

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 01:48 AM

Originally posted by LiteraryOneTwo
reply to post by redoubt

So that is why Socrates is considered a philosopher...Xantippe! thanks for the info..

I dunno about Socrates but... it probably explains why some of the great thinkers had so much time to ponder the mysteries of human existence rather than why the bed squeaked...

(I did NOT just say that!)

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 02:00 AM
reply to post by redoubt

i think it probably makes a philosopher less informed if the bed doesn't Squeak.. so to speak.. and more so if it does,assuming truth would finaly let herself be charmed,

[edit on 11-1-2010 by DizzyDayDream]

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 02:39 AM
reply to post by DizzyDayDream

Lol. You should seriously read the entire thread. I lay out some of my philosophy for ya.

I agree that pollution is bad, but we shouldn't get taxed for breathing.

posted on Jan, 11 2010 @ 04:09 AM
Truth is like a bad joke; Only the person telling it thinks it's worthy.

For me everything comes down to a judgement call. We've all got agendas and we're all trying to sift through everyone else's agendas to give value to our own.

With the dawn of the internet came the great gold rush of attention deprived intellectual property. There are more stories now than there are people on the planet. Some of these stories are flavoured with 'absolute' facts for certain tastes, others are peppered with nuggets of 'relevant' facts which support the hegemonic establishment.

The paradigm shift in our understanding of truth will occur once we've exhausted all avenues of thought and are left with recycling all our old garbage. The nuggets will get checked against the flavours and anything which holds up will be accepted as truth.

Sadly with celebrity stories bursting the gates, sports overflowing the dam and political sentiment clogging our drains the real flow of information is a long way off.

As for me and the specifics of how I check the facts...use Google appropriately, gauge the quality of information found - see where it differs, ask questions and support those who ask questions.


new topics

<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in