Instead of an epigraph.
Most likes are collected by "seals". Can this be considered a sign of an epidemic of toxoplasmosis?
In 1636, a certain Frenchman, Pierre de Fermat, by education and profession a lawyer, wrote a treatise "Introduction to the theory of flat and spatial places", where he outlined what is now called analytical geometry. Nobody was interested in his work and, in modern slang, he was sent to "ignore", which delayed the development of mathematics for 70 years, until Euler became interested in Fermat's work.
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 "Mendel's Laws".
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 XNUMXth century did professionals understand the importance of his conclusions. 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 a little less than the time separating us from the invention of the first antibiotic for the treatment of gangrene or pneumonia, or the vaccine against polio. This is more than separating us from the advent of the Internet, mobile phones, smartphones, personal computers, social networks.
In 1912, the German meteorologist Alfred Wegener put forward the theory of continental drift and suggested the existence of the pro-continent Pangea. He also received 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 make mistakes.
And when it comes to non-specialists who in one way or another evaluate texts, thoughts, ideas, websites, books, then the examination turns into a farce, and the ratings into “bans” and “dislikes” for really strong ideas, good sites and important texts. While the banal "cats" or "pop" collect rampant likes.
Many rating and ranking systems, in one form or another, are set up to take into account the “likes” of users. Perhaps this is not the best option. Or maybe not the best.
After all, if you think a little, it is unlikely that Albert Einstein would have gained many likes after the publication of his theory. However, he did not score, at first.
And Giordano Bruno and Socrates got so many "dislikes" that they were "banned" forever.
Pasternak, Sinyavsky, Daniel, Solzhenitsyn, Shostakovich, Jim Morrison, William Harvey, Jack London, Rembrandt, Vermeer, Henri Rousseau, Paul Cezanne, Marcel Duchamp and many other now recognized luminaries at one time fell under "dislikes" and "ban".
And today, anyone who says something that does not fit into the mainstream runs the risk of being banned and disliked.
And everyone who posts “cats” or other “pop” and mainstream has every chance of “likes”, success and good results in search engines.
What has changed? Why is Einstein the most liked scientist right now? Readers, listeners, viewers have changed. We have changed. Have matured.
What are the conclusions?
1. The conclusion is personal. If a text, thought or sound goes against generally accepted views, against the reader's (listener's, viewer's) own opinion, this is not at all a reason for a ban and a dislike. This is a reason to think. Analyze a different point of view, look at the "other side of the moon", sometimes even "look in the mirror."
2. The conclusion is practical. A ranking and rating system based on "likes" breeds "cats" and does not create a future. Such a system hides important and unusual information, impedes the development of thought and slows down 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, they believed that the circulatory system is not closed.
What would happen now if Harvey would still be "banned" and Galen would be 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. (Diseases that are now simply treated, or even completely disappeared, thanks to the followers of Harvey). One out of ten children would live to adulthood.
So the price of ranking “by likes” 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 doesn't seem to be connected. But it has been replaced by a different kind of “like”, for example, “user behavior” (including X) ... And the vast majority of users are interested in “cats” and other familiar and pleasant mainstream.
How should it be and how can it be changed? I don't have a prescription. This text only indicates the 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 is. There are many smart people, if they are not banned, of course.
Dear sir readers, I ask you to remember that “The style of controversy is more important than the subject of controversy. Objects change, but style creates civilization." (Grigory Pomerants). If I did not respond to 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 got into the habit of downvoting my comments. Every. 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 an intelligent comment.
But if you still want to get an answer and discuss the article, you can write me a private message. I answer them.
Note.
The article had a paragraph about Darwin and Chambers. I removed it now for two reasons.
The main one - 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 divert the meaning of the article, since it would require a lengthy explanation. And there are enough examples.
Not the main one - the outrage that this paragraph aroused prevented some readers from analyzing the article as a whole.
Source: habr.com