Geert Lovink on Weizenbaum and the Society of the Query
i am posting here commentary/book review by Geert Lovink sent to the nettime-l list today. The book isJoseph Weizenbaum mit Gunna Wendt, Wo sind sie, die Inseln der Vernunft
im Cyberstrom, Auswege aus der programmierten Gesellschaft, Herder
Verlag, Freiburg, 2006.
the translated title of which can be said to be (Lovink´s translation:
“Where are they, the islands of reason
in the cyber stream? Ways out of the programmed society.”
some of the more key phrases that struck a chord for me were (and their compilation suggests some kind of article summary):
A spectre haunts the world's intellectual elites: information
overload...
Not only are
popular noise levels up to unbearable levels, the chatter has entered
the domain of science and philosophy itself--thanks to the indifferent
Google. Search engines rank according to popularity, not Truth...
I do not believe that it is up to any professor or editor to decide
for us what is, and what is not nonsense. I would much rather like to
further revolutionize search tools and increase the general level of
media literacy....
Let’s forget Weizenbaum’s info
anxiety. What makes this interview book an interesting read is his
insistence on the art of asking the right question....
What we need instead of Google and Wikipedia, is the
“capacity to scrutinize and think critically.”...
For the time being we remain obsessed with
the increase in quality of the answer to our queries—and not with the
underlying problem, namely the poor quality of our education and the
diminishing ability to think in a critical way....
Every information, any object or experience has to be at hand
instantaneous. Serendipity requires a lot of time. If we can no longer
stumble into islands of reason through our inquiries, we may as well
have to build them. By definition these island will be artificial,
and, most likely, digital in nature.
---
Now, let me comment on Lovink´s piece.
I think it is that we start to face an information overload situation, in a professional context even. And this is in an environment where we have not yet even realised the/this full Open Access dream. The question of info overload then has done turns in my mind in recent times, since yes, it is a matter which needs addressing. To phrase it in the latter way does not mean that there aren´t good people doing good work on info retrieval. (See for instance the wonderful Photosynth demo http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/129 which, when thought of in and projected into the context of scholarly communication, makes you feel glad to have been born in these times (smile)). But think, and here is where I concur with Lovink, it is that people need to have/develop the skills to discern the level of quality of the work that is before them. Humans are innately adaptable are they not? What I disagree on is this either/or scenario suggested by Lovink when he says:
What we need instead of Google and Wikipedia, is the
“capacity to scrutinize and think critically.”...
It´s not a matter of "instead". Rather, it is a case of _because_ we have these kinds of tools (of which Google and Wikip are mere current instances; there will be others), that we need the “capacity to scrutinize and think critically.”
Then, as for the conclusion, I do wonder. Can it be that these spaces (islands) will be digital. If on the one hand, the piece calls for greater intellectual effort and discernment (things that happen in the human brain), then why can those spaces for serendipity not be constituted (also) of areas of mind, and not just be envisioned as some digital realm.
Think of it this way. Serendipity always (and I speak empirically) is a private event occurring between you and the information object, and the question which arises is where exactly is the locus of the serendipitous action (in among the bookstacks, say, or, while reading a digi article). what we tend to think is that the environment (physical or digital), shapes the experience and is therefore its locus. but isn´t it rather, that the environment are mere trappings, and the locus of the serendipitous event is the private space in there in your mind where "things come together"? so, isn´t the islands of reason still, essentially, in the mind?
okay, so what if we need to consider communal spaces, and some kind of group-think (not meant in its perjorative sense) scenario. well, then, i don´t know as yet :-)
---
The entire piece:
-------- Mensaje original --------
Asunto: Weizenbaum and the Society of the Query
Fecha: Thu, 23 Aug 2007 09:25:10 +0200
De: Geert Lovink
Responder a: Geert Lovink
Para: nettime-l@kein.org
Weizenbaum and the Society of the Query
By Geert Lovink
A spectre haunts the world's intellectual elites: information
overload. Ordinary people have hijacked strategic resources and
are clogging up once carefully policed media channels. Before the
Internet, the mandarin classes were able to strictly separate 'idle
talk' from 'knowledge. With the rise of Internet search engines it is
no longer possible to easily distinguish between patrician insights
and plebeian gossip. The distinction between high and low, and the
occasional mix during Carnival, are from all times and should not
greatly worry us. What is causing alarm is another issue. Not only are
popular noise levels up to unbearable levels, the chatter has entered
the domain of science and philosophy itself--thanks to the indifferent
Google. Search engines rank according to popularity, not Truth.
What today's administrators of noble simplicity and quiet grandeur
can't express, we should say for them: there is a growing discontent
in the search algorithms. The scientific establishment has lost
control over one of its key research projects, computer science
and the enlightened citizens and statesmen have so far not found
a way to communicate their concerns to those in charge (read:
the Google board). One possible way out could be to overcome to
positively redefine Heidegger's 'Gerede' as 'being of everyday
Dasein's understanding and interpreting'. Are Internet users cut off
from a a primary and primordial relationship with the world? Should we
portrayal bloggers and the Web 2.0 cybermasses as 'uprooted' and cut
off from the existantial?
These questions, and more, came up while reading an of book of
interviews with MIT professor Joseph Weizenbaum, known from the
computer therapy program ELIZA and his 1976 book Computer Power
and Human Reason. The publication is in German. A few years ago
Weizenbaum (b. 1923) moved back to Berlin, the city where he grew up
before he and his parents escaped from Nazis. The interviews were
conducted by Munich-based journalist Gunna Wendt. A number of Amazon
reviewers complained about Wendts uncritical questions and the
polite-superficial level of her contributions. No doubt interesting
are Weizenbaums stories about his youth in Berlin, the exile to the
USA and the way he got involved in computing during the 1950s. The
book indeed reads like a summary of Weizenbaums critique of computer
science. What interested me was the way in which Weizenbaum shapes
his arguments as an informed and respected insider (the net criticism
position, so to say). The title and subtitle sound intriguing.
Translated it goes like this: Where are they, the islands of reason
in the cyber stream? Ways out of the programmed society.
Weizenbaums Internet critique is general. He avoids becoming
specificand I appreciate that attitude. His Internet remarks are
nothing new for those familiar with Weizenbaums work: Internet
is a great pile of junk, a mass medium that up to 95% consists of
nonsense, much like the medium television, in which direction the
Web is inevitably developing. The so-called information revolution
has flipped into a flood of disinformation. The reason for this is
the absence of an editor or editorial principle. Why this crucial
media principle was not built-in by the first generations of computer
programmers, of which Weizenbaum was a prominent member, the book
fails to address.
On a number of occasions I have formulated a critique of such media
ecology, Hubert Dreyfus On the Internet (2001) being one of them.
I do not believe that it is up to any professor or editor to decide
for us what is, and what is not nonsense. I would much rather like to
further revolutionize search tools and increase the general level of
media literacy. If we walk into a book store or library our culture
has taught us how to browse through the thousands of titles. Instead
of complaining to the librarian that they carry too many books, we
call in assistance, or find the way ourselves. Weizenbaum would
like us to distrust what we see on our screens, be it television or
Internet. Who is going to tell what to trust, what is the truth and
what not, Weizenbaum doesnt mention. Lets forget Weizenbaums info
anxiety. What makes this interview book an interesting read is his
insistence on the art of asking the right question. Weizenbaum warns
for an uncritical use of the word information. The signals inside
the computer are not information. They are not more than signals.
There is only one way to turn signals into information, through
interpretation. For this we depend on the labour of the human brain.
The problem of the Internet, so Weizenbaum, is that it invites us
to see it as a Delphi oracle. To all our questions and problems,
the Internet will provide you the answer. But the Internet is not a
vending machine in which you throw a coin and then get what you want.
First of all there are plenty of obstacles before one can even pose a
question, like class, race and gender. Key is that you need to have
a proper education in order to formulate the right query. Its all
about how one gets to pose the right question. Weizenbaum: It doesnt
mean much that everyone can publish on the Net. Random publishing is
as useless as random fishing. In this context Weizenbaum makes the
comparison between Internet and now vanished CB radio. Communication
alone will not lead to useful and sustainable knowledge.
Weizenbaum relates the uncontested belief in (search engine) queries
to the rise of the problem discourse. Computers were introduced
as general problem solvers and a solution for everything. People
were invited to delegate their lives to the computer. We have a
problem, so Weizenbaum, and the problem requires an answer. But
personal and social tensions cannot be resolved through by declaring
them a problem. What we need instead of Google and Wikipedia, is the
capacity to scrutinize and think critically. Weizenbaum explains
this with the difference between hearing and listening. For a critical
understanding we first have to sit down and listen. Then we also need
to read, not just decipher, and learn to interpret and understand.
As were all aware, the so-called Web 3.0 is going to be the
technocratic answer to Weizenbaums criticism. Instead of Googles
algorithms that are based on keywords and an output based on ranking,
soon we will be able to ask questions to the next generation of
natural language search engines such as Powerset. However, we can
already guess that these computational linguists will not question the
problem-answering approach and will be wary to act as professional
expert who will decide what is and whats not crap on the Internet.
The same counts for the semantic Web school and similar artificial
intelligence technologies. Ever since the rise of search engines in
the 1990s we seem to be stuck in the Society of the Query, which,
as Weizenbaum indicates, isnt that much different from Debords
Society of the Spectacle. The complete reannotation of the worlds
information isnt going to solve the inevitable issue, also raised by
Andrew Keen in his Cult of the Amateur, about the future status of
the professional expert. For the time being we remain obsessed with
the increase in quality of the answer to our queriesand not with the
underlying problem, namely the poor quality of our education and the
diminishing ability to think in a critical way. I am skeptical if
next generations will discover Weizenbaums islands of reasons .
The culture of time is simply not there to stroll around , like a
flaneur. Every information, any object or experience has to be at hand
instantaneous. Serendipity requires a lot of time. If we can no longer
stumble into islands of reason through our inquiries, we may as well
have to build them. By definition these island will be artificial,
and, most likely, digital in nature.
--
Joseph Weizenbaum mit Gunna Wendt, Wo sind sie, die Inseln der Vernunft
im Cyberstrom, Auswege aus der programmierten Gesellschaft, Herder
Verlag, Freiburg, 2006.
# distributed via
#
# collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
# more info: majordomo@kein.org and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
# archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@kein.org
Labels: geert lovink, information overload, open access
posted by Jennifer A. DeBeer @ 12:20
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home