To those that mock you with "Why couldn't you Googles that"?

Sort:
Ubik42
AdamRinkleff wrote:
johnmusacha wrote:

For instance, any fool can read about the Battle of Hastings on Wikipedia.  However, will this person be able to intelligently discuss the modern signficance of the battle, or how the significance of the same was viewed differently in the nineteenth century, and why? 

With a PhD in military history, I often run into people who say things like, "What's the point when I can just google the facts?" Well, the point is that I don't have to google them, because I already know them. Furthermore, there are a lot of facts I know that you can't Google. I ran into someone once who tried the old Good Will Hunting, "Everything you know I can learn in the library for free." Actually, no. There are facts I know which aren't written in any book or on any website. I know stuff about WWII, and the American Revolution, and the Vietnam War, and the Marcomannic Wars, that nobody else on the planet knows. That's the point of a history degree.

I am going to go way, way out on a limb here, and hypothesize that there is just the tiniest amount more history knowledge obtainable via googling, then you have that is "not written anywhere".

Ubik42
CBA wrote:

"I know stuff about WWII, and the American Revolution, and the Vietnam War, and the Marcomannic Wars, that nobody else on the planet knows. That's the point of a history degree."

I would dispute the poster knows things (facts, he calls them) that no one else knows unless his research has been ground-breaking in each of these fields. In which case you would presume he might share that information with others. I would dispute that knowing what "nobody else on the planet knows" is "the point of a history degree".

"Think about some things that are written, but not books.  How are books written?  Are they just summaries of other books?  Or is there anything more?"

The next question is, is there written evidence which is not in books? The answer is, of course. But unless a student has access to all of the original work they will rely on its inclusion in books. Or videos. Or the internet. I am not talking about how evidence was originated, or what form it took, but how a student accesses it.

And lastly we get to purile insults. Which, as I said, is reverting to type. Some things, and some people, never really change.

+1

BIGWAYNE69

google aint gonna build you a hotrod

BIGWAYNE69

phd aint gonna build you a hotrod neither

BIGWAYNE69

thats a book from a library and it aint gonna build nothing either

winerkleiner
tkbunny wrote:
winerkleiner wrote:
tkbunny wrote:
winerkleiner wrote:
Senator-Blutarsky wrote:

This thread has been brought to you today by the letter Q, the number 5 and the Freudian slip.

Lol, the more you know!

Jim Henson was on a youtube vid to show kids how to make puppets from simple things like socks. 

Used socks?  That's gross.

spammers, sock puppets, and trolls, oh my ...

Lol.

winerkleiner
AlCzervik wrote:

If you go to google you can learn how to wash them, wk. Of course, the resident phd might leave you with other methods.

And I've been using a rock all these years, lol.

winerkleiner
Wolfbird wrote:

What's that smell?

And I suppose you're going to tell me I'm suppose to change my underwear also?   

winerkleiner

I don't need no stinkin books!

winerkleiner

Yes, there is a hot teacher that is messing with her school kids (4 came forward).

Ubik42

In fact, I am calling POE on this whole thread.

winerkleiner

P erfectly

O ffbeat

E ndeavor

Ubik42

In other words, if I was to make a post in satire of this "googles is bad" idea, I dont think I could do it in a way that you could tell the difference between satire and this thread.

winerkleiner

Try me/us!

Ubik42

Well I dont think I would want to try.

However, I do think google makes us dumber. All this instant information, its too easy. Back in the day, we would have to work to get our knowledge, like go to a library, search through the card index, and read... Now, you can just look stuff up. Real knowledge is what you get from the pages of a book, not "pages" on the web.

Wikipedia is just full of factually wrong information. Any encyclopedia trumps wikipedia, being more up to date, less biased, and more factual. There is more information in your local library than there is in the entire internet. But even if there wasn't, it only counts as knowledge if you are sitting in the library.

One thing I can't stand is anyone who looks up things on the internet and passes it off as knowledge. You dont really know any fact unless it comes with a PHD. There is no other way to gain knoledge.

Babytigrrr

The internet IS a source of knowledge ... it's just a matter of filtering out the credible knowledge from the rest.

Senator-Blutarsky
AlCzervik wrote:

If you go to google you can learn how to wash them, wk. Of course, the resident phd might leave you with other methods.

One cheap method is to let your neighbour bring their dog when they come for tea. Some dogs like licking socks.

bigpoison

I don't miss microphice, inter-library loans, or the countless hours I spent in the University library.  Apparently some folks do.

I didn't know that a PhD in "military history"--I'm not even sure a fella' can get a PhD in that particular field, back in my day, I think one U.S. University offered a masters program, but that was it--granted its holder the ability to travel in time.  Furthermore, there isn't an historian worth his salt who will claim he knows anything about his chosen area of study.

RonaldJosephCote

                   What is that, a joke??  I'm a few credits shy of an Associates in Military History. Anybody can study it at many institutions. Not to mention the 4 military academies.

johnmusacha

CBA stated "The next question is, is there written evidence which is not in books? The answer is, of course. But unless a student has access to all of the original work they will rely on its inclusion in books. Or videos. Or the internet."

Graduate-level students are expected to use written sources that are not in books, or videos, or the internet.  Is this a new concept to you?  Take a look at any volume of academic history from the last twenty years.  Check the bibliography and references therein.  Do you think that all of those listed are available on the internet?  I would say that about 10% of them are, at best.  Even less if the subject was on an obscure topic.   In any case, I apologise for the puerile insults.

@Bigpoison:  Military history is discrete sub-field of history these days.  Furthermore, I don't think von Rinkleff was saying that he knows everything about his field; he said that he knows things known by noone else.  

@Ubik:  You keep talking about facts as is facts equated knowledge.  Facts do not.  Knowledge is more about being able to rationally intregrate the facts into a higher understanding.  The ability to do that only comes through a classical education.