Some Observations about Technology and the Web

I've been fascinated by David Gerlenter's observations about the Internet and it's impact.

I love this assertion:

"The Internet is no topic like cellphones or videogame platforms or artificial intelligence; it's a topic like education. It's that big. Therefore beware: to become a teacher, master some topic you can teach; don't go to Education School and master nothing. To work on the Internet, master some part of the Internet: engineering, software, computer science, communication theory; economics or business; literature or design. Don't go to Internet School and master nothing. There are brilliant, admirable people at Internet institutes. But if these institutes have the same effect on the Internet that education schools have had on education, they will be a disaster."

I can't agree more that effective teachers need to know their subject matter before they teach. I also can't agree more that education schools have been a disaster for education.

The most fascinating part, however, was the assertion that the question "if this is the information age, what do our children know that our parents didn't?" has a specific answer. According to Gelernter, The answer is 'now.' They know about now." He continues, "Nowness is one of the most important cultural phenomena of the modern age"

I see nothing to argue with in these points; I am, however, frightened by them. If he is correct, then knowledge of the past and preparation for the future cease to be important. Equally important, reflection is nearly impossible if one is currently in the moment.

Gelernter, however, is optimistic: ". . . the Internet could be the most powerful device ever invented for understanding the past, and the texture of time. Once we understand the inherent bias in an instrument, we can correct it. The Internet has a large bias in favor of now. Using lifestreams (which arrange information in time instead of space), historians can assemble, argue about and gradually refine timelines of historical fact. Such timelines are not history, but they are the raw material of history. They will be bitterly debated and disputed — but it will be easy to compare two different versions (and the evidence that supports them) side-by-side. Images, videos and text will accumulate around such streams. Eventually they will become shared cultural monuments in the Cybersphere."

I'm not so sure. It seems to me that lack of knowledge of the past makes it possible to use Orwell as a blueprint not a warning. If there is no real knowledge of anything but "now," then the evidence can be massaged in a way that makes the debate and the evidence used to support each side position suspect. It will be theater not fact.