<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Killing Our Culture?: Blogging and Web 2.0</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2008/01/16/killing-our-culture-blogging-and-web-20/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2008/01/16/killing-our-culture-blogging-and-web-20/</link>
	<description>Blogging on Philosophy and Politics</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 21 Dec 2011 09:09:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: El Sordo</title>
		<link>http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2008/01/16/killing-our-culture-blogging-and-web-20/comment-page-1/#comment-459</link>
		<dc:creator>El Sordo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:57:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.methodinit.org.uk/methodinit/2008/01/16/killing-our-culture-blogging-and-web-20/#comment-459</guid>
		<description>I saw an interview with this guy on newsnight some time back and my immediate impression was that he was mistaken. Glad to see you&#039;ve read the book and my initial concerns were accurate.

You are right, the big mistake is to equate amateur with incompetence etc...

To go pomo for a second, clearly this is the death throws of the proffessionals discourse of power... he is feeling challenged... what by? Possibly the fact that intelligence is not defined by professional status - that many non-professionals take a sincere, deep and lifelong interest into something and can become quite expert in it, without it ever being anything more than a hobby.

What about Patrick Moore the astronomer? He is an amateur, and a recognised expert in lunar observation, all without formal tertiary level tuition.

The one sympathy I have with Keen, although this is not the point he is making, is that the growth in information technology has made the fallacy of authority a serious problem. It is not just intellectual laziness, but a genuine perception by those who do not research critically enough, that because it is published on a neat/nice blog the author must be some form of authority.

But you will never eradicate this error from the top-down. The responsibility for accurately percieving authority belongs to the individual.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I saw an interview with this guy on newsnight some time back and my immediate impression was that he was mistaken. Glad to see you&#8217;ve read the book and my initial concerns were accurate.</p>
<p>You are right, the big mistake is to equate amateur with incompetence etc&#8230;</p>
<p>To go pomo for a second, clearly this is the death throws of the proffessionals discourse of power&#8230; he is feeling challenged&#8230; what by? Possibly the fact that intelligence is not defined by professional status &#8211; that many non-professionals take a sincere, deep and lifelong interest into something and can become quite expert in it, without it ever being anything more than a hobby.</p>
<p>What about Patrick Moore the astronomer? He is an amateur, and a recognised expert in lunar observation, all without formal tertiary level tuition.</p>
<p>The one sympathy I have with Keen, although this is not the point he is making, is that the growth in information technology has made the fallacy of authority a serious problem. It is not just intellectual laziness, but a genuine perception by those who do not research critically enough, that because it is published on a neat/nice blog the author must be some form of authority.</p>
<p>But you will never eradicate this error from the top-down. The responsibility for accurately percieving authority belongs to the individual.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

