tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9219118682651705399.post4282508056377827317..comments2023-08-17T16:41:21.186+01:00Comments on Plus Ultra Technologies/30 steps: Internet & Books Share Same Critics 3Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05520520296089158799noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9219118682651705399.post-66284084919002675282011-09-07T00:06:26.365+01:002011-09-07T00:06:26.365+01:00Let me begin by saying first thank you very much f...Let me begin by saying first thank you very much for your<br />comments. I’m glad you enjoyed the article and I appreciate your criticism.<br />Second, I want to apologize for taking so long to write a response. Now allow<br />me to comment on your criticism. <br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />While yes I only cite 2 sources I would like to point out a<br />few things to you. One, this article was never intended to be an academic<br />paper. If I decide somewhere down the road to publish it in a scholarly journal<br />or turn it into a full book, I would definitely do a lot more research. But<br />this is really supposed to be a perspective piece, almost like an editorial. <br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />Two, there really isn’t any opposing view point to my<br />thesis. My main thesis is NOT, that “children should be exposed to the<br />Internet” as you state. My main objective was to show the similarities between<br />arguments that have been used both for and against the Internet as well as<br />other forms of technology (printed books, e-readers, & rubber-tipped<br />pencils). As far as I know there has never been any article that claims that<br />different arguments have been used for or against different technologies. <br /><br /><br />I do believe and state that children should be allowed to<br />use the Internet; but again this is NOT my main thesis. This is why you are<br />unable to decipher “who [I was] arguing against;” because I wasn’t arguing<br />“against” anyone in particular.<br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />When you state as an example that the Internet is being used<br />to harm children, and not to corrupt their minds, you are partly mistaken. It<br />is actually being accused of both. I will give you that harming children is the<br />greater of the two concerns, but to say that the corruption of their minds is<br />NOT a concern would be a bit naïve. Also, your example that children are being<br />preyed upon through the Internet actually helps strengthen the argument that<br />kids need to be taught how to navigate it. You can try to keep kids off the<br />Internet as much as you want; but this is 100% impossible, short of locking<br />them in a room. Any kid who wants to go on line WILL! They have access in<br />school, libraries, and cafes, as well as through their phones. Or they can just<br />borrow a friend’s device. So do NOT fool yourself into thinking this is even a<br />possibility. Rather than keeping it from them, we need to teach them all about<br />it; especially its dangers.<br /><br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />When you state, “When discussing these fears and responses<br />to them you should cite the plethora of cases and the opinions of the presiding<br />judges,” that is EXACTLY why I did not. All of these cases and studies that<br />universities have done on the Internet have been written about to an exhaustive<br />level. Everyone is well aware of them. I wanted to share some knowledge that<br />most people would not have already known or heard. Plus my blog was already<br />lengthy consisting of 3 parts. If I included all of that, it would have been<br />well over 6 parts. I think most people would admit that they probably would<br />have lost interest before the end of it, especially if I spent a lot of time<br />citing cases, studies, and stories that are very similar to ones they have<br />already heard. I believe you even realize this yourself. After all, why else<br />would you state, ”For what I have said I would like to cite every scientific<br />paper published in peer reviewed journal in the past 20 years.” By you stating<br />this, you show exactly how overstated all these studies are. Otherwise, why not<br />choose some and list them.<br /><br /><br />Again, I would like to thank you for all of your feedback. Laurence I Sandersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9219118682651705399.post-49271865305645218502011-09-03T13:57:42.665+01:002011-09-03T13:57:42.665+01:00I like the article, it is well written and interes...I like the article, it is well written and interesting. I also have to say that I agree with most of what is said.<br /> Now for the criticism; This article has a major problem. Your citations include only 2 sources. Both sources are writings that present your views. When you are writing an article that presents and argues against a viewpoint you should cite the original source. That is the source that disagrees with you, so people can see the argument the other side is making and not how you perceive the argument to be. <br />Presenting both points of an argument goes a long way to strengthening your opinion. By presenting the full position view point and maybe even showing examples where they have made a valid point is an important component of criticizing them. For example if I were to write an article countering your your view of "children should be exposed to the internet" I would cite a book written by a cop who sees children as prey on the internet, as supporting material that helped me build my opinion. But when I present your view, so I can counter it, I cite your article. This way the individual who is reading my article can refer to your argument after reading mine, and decide if I am correct with my criticism. When citing, if you are using a scholarly writing as supporting material for your view you should use scholarly writing when presenting the opposite view. You should use those with equal scholarly validity. Equal weight is important otherwise it diminishes your claim. Presenting the position as crazy makes you crazy for even responding to them. Giving them validity places your work above a well argues position. <br /><br />Here is an actual example of what I am talking about: <br />Books were seen as methods to corrupt people's minds but the issue with the internet is that it is used as a tool to prey on children, and it is effective at doing that. The problem is not that it is used to corrupt their mind (we are use to that with TV) but is used to physically harm them. There is no argument you can make to defend something that would trump this fear, even if it is irrational. <br />I agree with you that the best way to remedy this is to expose kids to more internet so they are well equipped to deal with this but you have to give more credence to the arguments that the natural inclination is to distance your-self (your kids) from what is harming you or your children. <br /><br />When discussing these fear and responses to them you should cite the plethora of cases and the opinions of the presiding judges. The judges opinions are open to the public and you can read them. You can also cite the opinions of many universities that began placing restriction on computer use by their students. Further, the many studies that have been done on the effects of the internet on children. All what I have told you are public information and you can access all of this. <br /><br />In short, I feel a full description and support of opposing views would be a good addition to the article. I can not argue against your opinion because I don't know who you are arguing against. Once I know the whole story I can judge if you are right.<br /><br />Citation:<br />For what I have said I would like to cite every scientific paper published in peer reviewed journal in the past 20 years. <br />(read any at random, try the following journal: PLoS Genetics, Neuron, Science, Nature (series), Psychopharmacology, Neuroscience, Science, PNAS or any other one. )<br />All the papers present previous theories, supporting material, their results and then their interpretation of the results. In that order. And every statement attributed to someone else is cited to the original source. Very rarely do we cite reviews or opinion pieces). NoNamenoreply@blogger.com