Calm? Hot? before the storm! The weather beavers are foretelling horrible winds early tomorrow and, perhaps, this is unclear, thunderstorms either before or after Either my attention is flagging or these guys are getting less clear.
Speaking of which, I ran across an article [Link] about some work at Ohio State U on “False beliefs persist, even after instant online corrections”. The appeal is obvious. The idea is not; that somehow instant “corrections” can be generated and displayed during (e.g.,) web surfing. I suppose that such may be possible in an experimental context, but in actuality? Probability zero, IMHO.
The first speed bump in crediting this thesis is that I actually believe what I read on the internet. The internet has a trust value of almost zero, edging out the bible, but only just and probably because of its greater volume (number of ASCII characters.) But the internet is unvalidated, unverified, unsubstantiated in almost all instances. So only the gullible and asentient are going to believe freely.
The second is the matter of true and false. Ignoring for the moment the inappropriate use of the terms outside a religionist context, the premise that falseness can be corrected is fraught with peril. Who determines the correctness and how? How can one rationally accept (as an ansatz for belief) anything on the internet absent some supporting information on testing or similar validation effort? Only those who are askeptic and arational?
It is also rather insightful of how whacked psychologists seem to be from science that they can even propose any such thing. In a sense, everything in science is false, only hopefully decreasing over time. But those who collecteth not stamps, in Eddington’s taxonomy, tend to use better language.
Which brings us to another bump. It is well known that humans tend to fixate on the first experience with some matter and even if change in the information occurs later, it does not stick to the mind as solidly. This is part of why much scientific progress is made by the young who have not seen things and science often seems to progress generationally. But how do you “correct” for this effect?
I fear this just adds substantiation to something my father once told me “stirred stercus smells ten times worse.”