Is Google Making us Stupid?

Is Google Making Us Stupid?

What is the argument of the reading?
 The argument of "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" is that the internet has shaped our intelligence in a way that prevents us from deep reading. He argues that the way the internet is structrured- with hyperlinks, pop-ups, ads, and summaries- changes the way people read. He argues that the internet's design encourages people to jump from article to article, and skim for information, as opposed to thinking deeply about what they are reading.

How does the reading connect to other things we have read or discussed?
 This reading connects to most of the articles we read at the beginning of the year, particularily with the article we read on the banking concept vs. the problem posing method. In "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" the author argues that deep thinking has been hindered by an internet that encourages skimming through and looking purely for the facts, as opposed to thinking deeply into the text. This is similar to the banking concept, which merely presents facts without the implication that one should think any further into the information presented. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" also relates to the Lewis article that we read at the beginning of the year about reading with and against the grain. This article encourages reading and re-reading, interacting with the text, and challenging the ideas within the text that you disagree with. This is, as "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" argues, exactly what the internet has stopped us from doing. The author argue that the internet amkes people less inclined to re-read articles, or look into them for deeper meaning.

Question:
Is the internet the only thing responsible for the stoppage of deep reading in people?

Open Access Websites

Ch. 19 #2

Site #1:

http://www.berkeley.edu/news/berkeleyan/2007/02/14_open_access.shtml

The entire site isn't all about open access and free information, but it does have an article that argues for the use of open access in the realm of research and science. The website itself is the official website for Berkeley University, and the article is written about a couple of the proffesors at the school and their arguements for the use of open access. A good thing about this article is that it presents not only the pro-open access arguments, but also the anti-open access arguments. It then presents reasons for why the anti-open access arguments are invalid. This site makes two strong points about the fiscal need for open access. They argue that in order for other researchers and scientists to see the results of another person's research, they have to pay for an expensive scientific journal- which makes it more difficult to obtain information that they might use to help their own research, which hinders their ability to make discoveries and come up with new innovations. Their second fiscal point is that university libraries and scientists in third world countries can't afford to buy scientific journals and are, therefore, not up-to-date on information and advancements in science. It also presents the counter-arguments to open access. The main counter-arguement is that open access doesn't provide enough revenue, and isn't fiscally sound. In order to combat that arguement, the article states that open access journals will make their information free for use 6 months after the particular journal is published.

Site #2:

http://www.arl.org/sparc/openaccess/why-oa.shtml

This site makes many strong arguments for the use of open- access. This site is an open-access publishing site that actually employes the use of open-access. It first tells the reader why open-acces should be used, saying that it benefits investors, reasearchers, and the general public who can enjoy the benefits of a broader access to research. The site also explains what open- access actually is. It also highlights the specific benefits that researchers, educational institutions, businesses, the public, and research funders would each recieve via the use of open-access. Namely, that more useful research will be done, that jobs will be created, and that money will not be misused or wasted.

To Be Free, or Not To Be Free?

Ch. 18 # 1

The claims made by authors of sites and articles advocating free information (or "open access") often argue that the free access of information will produce massive benefits for society at large. Most of them present the benefits it will have for education and research- particularily in the context of scientific findings and articles. They also appeal to pathos, arguing that open access benefits scientists in third world countries, where they can't afford to buy expensive journals, and are therefore, out of the loop on new advancements in the scientific field. They also appeal to pathos by arguing that, because of open access, the public will be able to see the results of the research their tax-dollars paid for. The sites also appeal to ethos, having been created by proffesors from acredited institutions. The articles also create ethos by being featured on the official websites for several accredited institutions. I found their arguments very persuasive. Their arguements were all very logical, and they showed the problems people had when articles weren't published via open-access. They also stated many of the counter-arguements against open access, and then provided logical reasons for why the counter-arguements were invalid. Because of the logic of their reasoning, I have come to the conclusion that open-access, at least for scientific research, should be used.