In Amusing Ourselves to Death, the second chapter impresses on us the belief that the written word is always more reliable than the spoken word. However, take this example. In middle school, we as students were sometimes told to add a little flair to our papers on the Great Wall of China or another wonder of the world. (Keep in mind, this is just a scenario, I don't think any of us really had to do a 7 Wonders report.) The minimum was four pages and you had run out of information on the bottom of the third page. To spice it up, you had the little bits and pieces you had heard about said wonder throughout the years, from your teachers, parents, and friends. Is this information any less reliable than what you read in the books?
We aren't allowed to cite Wikipedia for a reason. Even as a written word source, unscholarly people turn lies into truth with factual sounding evidence with no statistical proof that it is correct. Neither written word or spoken word is one hundred percent truth or lie, so why do we assume one is more reliable than the other?
It seems to me the reason that a written source is considered more reliable than spoken word is that there is concrete proof of what was written. You can physically pick up a piece of paper and SHOW someone what was written. However, with spoken word, there is no concrete proof. There is only the memories and words of those that heard you speak. Therefore a written statement is considered more reliable because it is much more readily proven than spoken word.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a good point with Wikipedia. Just because something is written and can be readily cited and referenced, does not mean that it was true to begin with. Written word has advantages over spoken word, but it is by no means perfect.
I agree with Kevin's statement. Reading an article seems to have a higher degree of truth than just listening to a friend ramble on. Postman offers up many good explanations on why the written word is stronger than spoken words on page 21 (most are just assumptions).
ReplyDeleteAlong with your scenario, I'm going to make up "Beau." Beau needs to do his project and needs his research. Since this is research for a paper, he sees that there is more truth to be found in the words in a book or on a computer (which is only true if the information is directed at the world and has been looked over, as Postman says). The spoken words from his friends and family are a bit less reliable because they're not concrete. The spoken word might be right, but there are chances in which it could be wrong. The written word, usually revised and looked over, can be backed up by facts most of the time while there is more difficulty in backing up spoken words without going back to the written text.
As an avid Wikipedia user, I can say that I only use it for quick facts for movies and other things that aren't academic related. Why? Wikipedia is notorious for letting just about anybody edit it. There may be references, but if a statement on the site doesn't have one, can I sit there and believe that someone reliable wrote it?
I agree with your last statement, Ligaya. Both have their flaws to them, but I think it just depends on what the scenario is. In this case, Beau is doing a project in middle school. To me, anything academic based requires the usage of written text because I don't like taking chances when it comes to school. In other situations, the spoken word may be better. It all just comes down to the context when determining which one is better.