Internet is a great source of knowledge; there is massive amount of data that you can reach out and acknowledge them yourself without buying books or consulting other people. But, since there’re a lot of people on the Internet; you don’t know that they’re expert, or just some teenagers that want to show off, so you have to beware that knowledge on the Internet, most of them, cannot be trusted.
According to “Trust your doctor, not Wikipedia, say scientists”, scientists compared Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, which anyone can edit the article, with peer-reviewed medical research, and found that 9 out of 10 of its health entries contain errors, so it should be acknowledge with caution.
Some people, when they’re sick, they search the Internet to find what disease is the cause of their symptoms, and how to cure it. Then they go to see a doctor, if unfortunately, a doctor doesn’t have the same opinion as the Internet, they would put up a fight. Do they really think that someone on the Internet is more trustworthy than their doctor? Or maybe just individuals ego?
I think the Internet has a lot of knowledge, and it’s still a good idea to look up something that you want to know. However, you have to discriminate which data can be, or cannot be trust. The easiest way to find out is to look at some information about that website. Is it a social community? Is it administrated by government or others? Does the writer is the expert in this field? You should not trust most of things that come from social community. Facebook, for example. Furthermore, the website might be administrated by government, but sometimes writers aren't the expert ones, they're just normal employees. As a result, it can cause misunderstandings to a lot of people, and 'true' expert have to do more work to correct that. This case is rare in some countries, but it does happens a lot in Thailand.
My teacher once told me that there are a lot of people who trust internet too much, and when they come for treatments at the hospital, their disease progressed too much and it was harder to cure. Sometimes I think if they went to consult the doctor in the first place, their situation might not end up like this. For these reasons, I want you to be cautious with data you get from the internet. And if you have a problem about your health ,or something related to this, consult experts first.
According to “Trust your doctor, not Wikipedia, say scientists”, scientists compared Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, which anyone can edit the article, with peer-reviewed medical research, and found that 9 out of 10 of its health entries contain errors, so it should be acknowledge with caution.
Some people, when they’re sick, they search the Internet to find what disease is the cause of their symptoms, and how to cure it. Then they go to see a doctor, if unfortunately, a doctor doesn’t have the same opinion as the Internet, they would put up a fight. Do they really think that someone on the Internet is more trustworthy than their doctor? Or maybe just individuals ego?
My teacher once told me that there are a lot of people who trust internet too much, and when they come for treatments at the hospital, their disease progressed too much and it was harder to cure. Sometimes I think if they went to consult the doctor in the first place, their situation might not end up like this. For these reasons, I want you to be cautious with data you get from the internet. And if you have a problem about your health ,or something related to this, consult experts first.
__________
Reference
Trust your doctor, not Wikipedia, say scientists. (2014, May
27). BBC News Health. Retrieved May 27, 2014 from http://www.bbc.com/news/health-27586356
I totally agree with you that we should determine whether the source of data, especially on the Internet, is reliable or not. I believe that most people decided to believe on the first things that they found even though it might be wrong. I think that your response to the news is really fabulous. It also led me to think that how we can convince people to believe in our opinion. What do we need for convincing people? Although I agree with the Petch’s caution and suggestion, others might not agree.
ReplyDeleteI agree that critical thinking is needed, not just for opinions on medical matters, but on every matter - scientific, moral, social, mathematical, historical or political.
ReplyDeleteIt is an unhealthy habit, with potentially disastrous consequences, to believe something for no better reason than that some authority, whether Wikipedia, Aristotle or a dictator, has said it.
Happily, as Petch's chosen article and her responses show, where there is free speech, errors can at least be discovered and corrected. Imagine the situation if opposing views were illegal to state, which is why all good academics demand academic freedom - free speech is a necessary condition for all informed opinion of worth that aspires to be knowledge.