March 5, 2019 at 19:22Like defects
Instead of an epigraph.
Most of all “cats” collect likes. Can this be considered a sign of an epidemic of toxoplasmosis?
In 1636, a certain Frenchman, Pierre de Fermat, a lawyer by training and profession, wrote a treatise, “Introduction to the Theory of Flat and Spatial Places,” which outlined what is now called analytic geometry. His work did not interest anyone and, speaking in modern slang, he was sent to ignore, which delayed the development of mathematics by 70 years, until Euler became interested in the work of Fermat.
From 1856 to 1863, the Austrian monk Gregor Johann Mendel conducted experiments on peas in the monastery garden and discovered the basic laws of modern genetics, known to us as the "Laws of Mendel."
On March 8, 1865, Mendel published the results of his experiments. But the work did not arouse interest among professionals. Mendel was also sent to ignore.
Only at the beginning of the 20th century did professionals understand the importance of the conclusions made by him. True, for this they had to rediscover the laws of inheritance already derived by Mendel.
Thus, “ignore” and “ban” delayed the development of genetics for 50 years. This is slightly less than the time that separates us from the invention of the first antibiotic for the treatment of gangrene or pneumonia or the polio vaccine. This is more than what separates us from the advent of the Internet, mobile phones, smartphones, personal computers, social networks.
The German meteorologist Alfred Wegener in 1912 put forward the theory of the drift of the continents and suggested the existence of the progenitor Pangea. He also instructed a bunch of "dislikes".
Wegener returned to meteorology and died on an expedition to Greenland in 1930. And in the late 60s, the correctness of Wegener's assumptions was fully confirmed. Those. after 48 years.
What are these stories about? That even professionals can be wrong.
And when it comes to non-specialists, in one way or another evaluating texts, thoughts, ideas, sites, books, the examination turns into a farce, and evaluations into “bans” and “dislikes” are really strong ideas, good sites and important texts. While the banal "cats" or "pop" collect uncontrolled likes.
Many rating and ranking systems, in varying degrees and form, are configured to take into account users «likes’. This may not be the best option. Or maybe not the best.
After all, if you think a little, it is unlikely that Albert Einstein would have gained a lot of likes after the publication of his theory. However, he didn’t get it, first.
And Giordano Bruno and Socrates scored so many “dislikes” that they turned out to be “banned” forever.
Pasternak, Sinyavsky, Daniel, Solzhenitsyn, Shostakovich, Jim Morrison, William Harvey, Jack London, Rembrandt, Vermeer, Henri Russo, Paul Cezanne, Marcel Duchamp and many other recognized luminaries in their day fell under the “dislikes” and “ban”.
And today everyone who says something that does not fit into the mainstream risks falling under the ban and dislikes.
And everyone who posts “seals” or other “pops” and the mainstream has every chance of “likes”, success and good results in search engines.
What has changed? Why is Einstein the most “like” scientist now? Readers, listeners, viewers have changed. We have changed. Sprouts.
What are the conclusions?
1. The conclusion is personal. If a text, thought or sound runs counter to conventional wisdom, contrary to the reader’s own opinion (listener, viewer) - this is not at all a reason for ban and dislike. This is a reason to think. Analyze a different point of view, look at the "reverse side of the moon," sometimes even "look in the mirror."
2. The conclusion is practical. The system of ranking and rating based on "likes" produces "cats" and does not create the future. Such a system hides important and unusual information, impedes the development of thought and inhibits development.
As a result of such a ranking, for example, Galen would easily "ban" Harvey. Indeed, according to Galen, 10 centuries, 1000 years before Harvey, it was believed that the circulatory system was not closed.
What would happen now if Harvey were “banned” and Galen was in the “top”? Well, for example, the average life expectancy would be 35 years, people would die in cities, millions from diphtheria, plague, smallpox, syphilis and pneumonia. (The diseases that are now being treated elementarily, or even completely disappeared, thanks to the followers of Harvey). One out of ten children would survive to adulthood.
So the price of ranking “like” can be quite expensive for humanity.
Once upon a time, ranking in search engines was tied to links. In fact, this is the same "like." Now, it seems, is not tied. But it has been replaced by a different kind of “like”, for example, “user behavior” (including ICS) ... And the vast majority of users are interested in “cats” and another familiar and pleasant mainstream.
How should and how can this be changed? I have no recipe. This text only indicates a problem. One thing is obvious - the erroneous method must be abandoned. It is possible that at first there will be nothing to replace it. And then - there. There are many smart people, if they are not banned, of course.
Dear Sirs, Readers, I ask you to remember that “The polemic style is more important than the subject of polemic. Items change, and style creates civilization. ” (Grigory Pomerantz). If I did not answer your comment, then something is wrong with the style of your polemic.
Addition.
I apologize to everyone who wrote a sensible comment, but I did not answer. The fact is that one of the users was addicted to minus my comments. Each. As soon as it appears. This prevents me from gaining a “charge” and putting a plus in karma and for the answer to those who write sensible comments.
But if you still want to get an answer and discuss the article, you can write me a personal message. I answer them.
Note.
The article was a paragraph about Darwin and Chambers. I deleted it now for two reasons.
Main - There was an inaccuracy in the wording that cut off Lamarck and other scientists who, like Darwin, tried to explain the mechanism of evolution and wrote books.
Clarification of the wording would take the meaning of the article aside, since it would require a long explanation. And there are enough examples.
Not the main one - the outrage that this paragraph provoked prevented some readers from analyzing the article as a whole.
Illustrations: Acrolesta .
Most of all “cats” collect likes. Can this be considered a sign of an epidemic of toxoplasmosis?
In 1636, a certain Frenchman, Pierre de Fermat, a lawyer by training and profession, wrote a treatise, “Introduction to the Theory of Flat and Spatial Places,” which outlined what is now called analytic geometry. His work did not interest anyone and, speaking in modern slang, he was sent to ignore, which delayed the development of mathematics by 70 years, until Euler became interested in the work of Fermat.
From 1856 to 1863, the Austrian monk Gregor Johann Mendel conducted experiments on peas in the monastery garden and discovered the basic laws of modern genetics, known to us as the "Laws of Mendel."
On March 8, 1865, Mendel published the results of his experiments. But the work did not arouse interest among professionals. Mendel was also sent to ignore.
Only at the beginning of the 20th century did professionals understand the importance of the conclusions made by him. True, for this they had to rediscover the laws of inheritance already derived by Mendel.
Thus, “ignore” and “ban” delayed the development of genetics for 50 years. This is slightly less than the time that separates us from the invention of the first antibiotic for the treatment of gangrene or pneumonia or the polio vaccine. This is more than what separates us from the advent of the Internet, mobile phones, smartphones, personal computers, social networks.
The German meteorologist Alfred Wegener in 1912 put forward the theory of the drift of the continents and suggested the existence of the progenitor Pangea. He also instructed a bunch of "dislikes".
Wegener returned to meteorology and died on an expedition to Greenland in 1930. And in the late 60s, the correctness of Wegener's assumptions was fully confirmed. Those. after 48 years.
What are these stories about? That even professionals can be wrong.
And when it comes to non-specialists, in one way or another evaluating texts, thoughts, ideas, sites, books, the examination turns into a farce, and evaluations into “bans” and “dislikes” are really strong ideas, good sites and important texts. While the banal "cats" or "pop" collect uncontrolled likes.
Many rating and ranking systems, in varying degrees and form, are configured to take into account users «likes’. This may not be the best option. Or maybe not the best.
After all, if you think a little, it is unlikely that Albert Einstein would have gained a lot of likes after the publication of his theory. However, he didn’t get it, first.
And Giordano Bruno and Socrates scored so many “dislikes” that they turned out to be “banned” forever.
Pasternak, Sinyavsky, Daniel, Solzhenitsyn, Shostakovich, Jim Morrison, William Harvey, Jack London, Rembrandt, Vermeer, Henri Russo, Paul Cezanne, Marcel Duchamp and many other recognized luminaries in their day fell under the “dislikes” and “ban”.
And today everyone who says something that does not fit into the mainstream risks falling under the ban and dislikes.
And everyone who posts “seals” or other “pops” and the mainstream has every chance of “likes”, success and good results in search engines.
What has changed? Why is Einstein the most “like” scientist now? Readers, listeners, viewers have changed. We have changed. Sprouts.
What are the conclusions?
1. The conclusion is personal. If a text, thought or sound runs counter to conventional wisdom, contrary to the reader’s own opinion (listener, viewer) - this is not at all a reason for ban and dislike. This is a reason to think. Analyze a different point of view, look at the "reverse side of the moon," sometimes even "look in the mirror."
2. The conclusion is practical. The system of ranking and rating based on "likes" produces "cats" and does not create the future. Such a system hides important and unusual information, impedes the development of thought and inhibits development.
As a result of such a ranking, for example, Galen would easily "ban" Harvey. Indeed, according to Galen, 10 centuries, 1000 years before Harvey, it was believed that the circulatory system was not closed.
What would happen now if Harvey were “banned” and Galen was in the “top”? Well, for example, the average life expectancy would be 35 years, people would die in cities, millions from diphtheria, plague, smallpox, syphilis and pneumonia. (The diseases that are now being treated elementarily, or even completely disappeared, thanks to the followers of Harvey). One out of ten children would survive to adulthood.
So the price of ranking “like” can be quite expensive for humanity.
Once upon a time, ranking in search engines was tied to links. In fact, this is the same "like." Now, it seems, is not tied. But it has been replaced by a different kind of “like”, for example, “user behavior” (including ICS) ... And the vast majority of users are interested in “cats” and another familiar and pleasant mainstream.
How should and how can this be changed? I have no recipe. This text only indicates a problem. One thing is obvious - the erroneous method must be abandoned. It is possible that at first there will be nothing to replace it. And then - there. There are many smart people, if they are not banned, of course.
Dear Sirs, Readers, I ask you to remember that “The polemic style is more important than the subject of polemic. Items change, and style creates civilization. ” (Grigory Pomerantz). If I did not answer your comment, then something is wrong with the style of your polemic.
Addition.
I apologize to everyone who wrote a sensible comment, but I did not answer. The fact is that one of the users was addicted to minus my comments. Each. As soon as it appears. This prevents me from gaining a “charge” and putting a plus in karma and for the answer to those who write sensible comments.
But if you still want to get an answer and discuss the article, you can write me a personal message. I answer them.
Note.
The article was a paragraph about Darwin and Chambers. I deleted it now for two reasons.
Main - There was an inaccuracy in the wording that cut off Lamarck and other scientists who, like Darwin, tried to explain the mechanism of evolution and wrote books.
Clarification of the wording would take the meaning of the article aside, since it would require a long explanation. And there are enough examples.
Not the main one - the outrage that this paragraph provoked prevented some readers from analyzing the article as a whole.
Illustrations: Acrolesta .