By way of conversation with a co-worker last week, it occurred to me that the general public’s knowledge, more specifically the truthfulness of knowledge, is fleeting. The more I think about how the general public gathers information, the more I realize perception of what is truthful or accurate can only regress.

I won’t bore you with the details of the entire conversation but I’ll give you the gist and we can work from that. My colleague and I were discussing his workout regime at the gym. (I should insert here that my formal education was in Exercise Science, so I am slightly more sensitive to misinformation in this area)

We were chatting and he mentioned that he had run for 45 minutes on the treadmill. Being a runner myself, I was impressed and asked him how far, fast etc. He replied, “ I’m not sure how far but it was a great workout, I was sweating like crazy. My shirt was soaked, so it had to have been really hard.”

In reference to the above quote, anyone who is somewhat informed about exercise will quickly point out that sweating is in no shape or form correlated to exertion or energy output. I’ve seen people sweat while eating and I’m quite certain their effort was not equal to that of jaunt in the park. Truth be told, the real correlation is between heart rate and exertion.

So now you’re thinking, what the hell, what’s they point of story and why am I reading still? I can assure you the story was only to illustrate a point. After ‘discussing’ this issue further I was able to deduce that my colleague friend had learned this from an article he read on the Internet.

Ah ha! Well, that provides a little but of insight as to where we went wrong here.

I pondered over this on my way home and began to think about all of the potential topics one could look up via the Internet. And really, is there a topic that cannot be found? There are sites that are fairly self-responsible and provide valid and accurate information but I’m quite certain that even the on-line encyclopedia king Wikipedia cannot claim to boast 100% accuracy. I’ll bet it’s somewhere in the realm of 80%. Clearly the amount of potential information that exists is near infinite and will continue to expand

Now of course, any academic would quickly point out that information found via the Internet does not qualify as a valid research tool in itself. But the reality is that the general population are not academics and to clarify, a diploma or degree does not confer upon anyone the title ‘academic’. On a day-to-day, hour-to-hour basis, most of us turn to the Internet for quick research.

What troubles me is that there is no distinctive line drawn between the types of information available. Take my colleague for example. The information he obtained is clearly anecdotal and weak at the very least. I suspect a large portion of web information is anecdotal disguised as fact.

As an obvious example, I’m sure if you were to check out any terrorist linked group’s website, their version of what is happening in the middle-east is vastly different from that of which we read and see in the west. Of course, we in the west are inclined to believe the latter.

It is concerning that potentially hundreds or thousands or even millions of people living in the same country, town or neighborhood could very well claim to have the most accurate version of the truth. I’m not speaking in the philosophical sense; let’s not go down that road. I’m sure not everyone believes the sky is blue, some believe it to be light blue. We could talk about it until we’re blue in the face, pun intended.

Depending on how and where people are gathering their information, what was once perceived as true may no longer be that. It gets even more complicated when ideas that are at best questionable or outlandish claims are brought into the mainstream media and news.

Take endorsements for example. People will buy a product a product based on the endorsement by someone they admire, respect or even in some cases find attractive. The person buying the product obviously believes there is some form of truthfulness or honesty in the product or at least wants to believe so. But ultimately, their belief is in the person rather than the product. People continue to invest in products and services that really have no proven effect or benefit but believe it to be true with no rhyme or reason.
I’m not claiming products, which have been endorsed, are faulty or less than forthright but I’m quite certain there are a large percentage that do not live up to their claims and the company banks on unquestioning loyalty to the endorser.

I suspect critical thinking is one obvious method warding off poorly educated conclusions. However, this skill is not generally encouraged outside of certain courses at a post-secondary level and Government or media institutions tend to squirm when their followers begin to question information accuracy. I suppose I should add theocratic institutions as well. (Critical thinking could go a long way for those students being taught intelligent design in place of Darwinism)

The Internet has made information readily accessible and has created a global consciousness that previously did not exist. With such an increase of accessible information and a steady decline in critical thought processing, the difference between fact and fiction will become ambiguous and the search for truth may remain elusive.