The Washington Post on Information and Knowledge

Source: "Can You Handle It? Better Yet: Do You Know It When You See It?" Monica Hesse, The Washington Post, April 27, 2008.

This article makes the valid point that, as students are able to access more and more information on the Internet, it is important that they learn how to evaluate that information. Is it accurate? Is it still valid? Is it from a credible source? Is is complete?

The author seems to feel that information from books is more likely to be credible than that from the Internet, but seems herself to be drawing on popular non-fiction rather than, say, peer reviewed journals articles. Of course, I am not the first nor will I be the last to question the credibility of a newspaper, or indeed even a better newspaper such as the Washington Post.

The article seems to use the word "knowledge" as I use the word "understanding". I think we normally mean by "knowledge", information which we have available in our minds. Any scientist should tell you that scientific knowledge, at least, is always tentative. Newton's theory of gravity, proven good for all practical purposes for centuries, was superseded by Einstein's theory, especially when practical purposes came to include the calculations of orbits of space vehicles.

I have a friend who coined the wise phrase:

I know many things to be true, and one of the things I know to be true is that some of the things I know to be true are not true.

"Understanding," as I use the term, involves recognition of the relationships among pieces of knowledge, and the ability to utilize knowledge, and the ability to judge the credibility of pieces of knowledge.

The article recognizes an important fact: sometimes information that is not very credible is good enough. The author mentions an online query from a drunk who wanted to know how large iguanas grow. It is likely that a quick answer if a fairly decent source could be located would more than suffice. (Of course, if the guy was trying to figure out whether he was facing a gater or a lizard out in the wild, it might be important to give him an answer quickly that had little chance of encouraging him to grab what might be a gatoe!)

As postings on this blog have pointed out in the past, there are trade-offs between the cost of information, the timeliness of information, the utility of information, and the credibility of information. It almost always costs more and takes longer to get more credible information, and sometimes the utility decreases with the time needed to get the information without increasing with more credibility. There is always a question as to whether the value of more credibility justifies the expense to obtain that greater credibility.