One problem with this article is that it points to an ignorance in the media concerning technology reporting but doesn't really bring to light what is peculiar about the danger concerning this issue. Is it just that they are more ignorant on this than anything else? Or is it the ignorance coupled with fear? I think it's the latter. But the fear is poorly established, or rather, the irrational aspect of attitudes towards gaming is poorly established. Katz gives us criteria gleamed from one writer who is, I suppose, invested with the mighty authority of sociolgy and thus science in general, and so we should accept them as leading to real and useful knowledge. This is doubtful in and of itself, but there are problems with establishing that the phenomenon he's describing is even classifiable under the criteria he's given. The real problem is with the fourth criterion: Perceptions that the group is more dangerous than it really is, generating fear that's disproportionate to the threat. In order to establish that they are being irrational and simply fearful, we'd have to show that the group wasn't as dangerous as was thought. How could we possibly show that and prove that they were mistaken? We couldn't. So then how does it make sense to claim that the threat is less than assumed when we too have no access to knowledge which could possibly justify that claim. Katz has assumed that the media and those against technology are generally ignorant and thus fearful, and then infers that they are ignorant again. Whether or not you beleive that fear is caused by ignorance at all, Katz has made the mistake of claiming that all fear is caused by ignorance insofar as he holds, without the possibility of demonstration, that they are ignorant of the real nature of gaming's effects on society. If it is not clear that more knowledge would falsify the claims of those against gaming, then perhaps they are eminently rational and understand quite well what they're talking about.
He has made a circular argument, introduced an inapplicable concept of knowledge (in intorducing ognorance), and borrowed the authority of science and logical reasoning simply to demonize some group of people traditionally against the high tech society. It may be a small point, and I might be pedantic in going on so long, but it's important not to let this sort of thing go without mention if we are sincere in wanting a more open society.
, and they are fearful of gaming as evidenced buy their angry rhetoric theirThe US didn't fall into the pit of Hell with the end of slavery nor with women's suffrage, but it certainly was changed dramatically. Leaving aside the point made by others that Katz overestimates the influence of gaming on American society, what is irresponsible is his pretense of logical demonstration through a very shaky set of criteria that what is at work in discussions of the damgers of the chnages being seen is mainly fear of change, technology, youth, whatever.
Slashdot Mirror
One problem with this article is that it points to an ignorance in the media concerning technology reporting but doesn't really bring to light what is peculiar about the danger concerning this issue. Is it just that they are more ignorant on this than anything else? Or is it the ignorance coupled with fear? I think it's the latter. But the fear is poorly established, or rather, the irrational aspect of attitudes towards gaming is poorly established. Katz gives us criteria gleamed from one writer who is, I suppose, invested with the mighty authority of sociolgy and thus science in general, and so we should accept them as leading to real and useful knowledge. This is doubtful in and of itself, but there are problems with establishing that the phenomenon he's describing is even classifiable under the criteria he's given. The real problem is with the fourth criterion: Perceptions that the group is more dangerous than it really is, generating fear that's disproportionate to the threat. In order to establish that they are being irrational and simply fearful, we'd have to show that the group wasn't as dangerous as was thought. How could we possibly show that and prove that they were mistaken? We couldn't. So then how does it make sense to claim that the threat is less than assumed when we too have no access to knowledge which could possibly justify that claim. Katz has assumed that the media and those against technology are generally ignorant and thus fearful, and then infers that they are ignorant again. Whether or not you beleive that fear is caused by ignorance at all, Katz has made the mistake of claiming that all fear is caused by ignorance insofar as he holds, without the possibility of demonstration, that they are ignorant of the real nature of gaming's effects on society. If it is not clear that more knowledge would falsify the claims of those against gaming, then perhaps they are eminently rational and understand quite well what they're talking about. He has made a circular argument, introduced an inapplicable concept of knowledge (in intorducing ognorance), and borrowed the authority of science and logical reasoning simply to demonize some group of people traditionally against the high tech society. It may be a small point, and I might be pedantic in going on so long, but it's important not to let this sort of thing go without mention if we are sincere in wanting a more open society. , and they are fearful of gaming as evidenced buy their angry rhetoric theirThe US didn't fall into the pit of Hell with the end of slavery nor with women's suffrage, but it certainly was changed dramatically. Leaving aside the point made by others that Katz overestimates the influence of gaming on American society, what is irresponsible is his pretense of logical demonstration through a very shaky set of criteria that what is at work in discussions of the damgers of the chnages being seen is mainly fear of change, technology, youth, whatever.