I read an article recently about motorcycles (I know, "surprise, surprise"). The subject of the article was not really the important matter; suffice it to say, the author of the article made a number of mistakes. What I would like to point out, however, is not his mistakes, but the vast number of errors in the comment section. It seemed everyone who read the article believed he knew more than the author (and they all disagreed with one another as well!).
In correcting the original errors of the article everyone seemed to believe that he had the right understanding of things, and many who commented even gave long explanations for what they believed was correct. It was a bit stunning. Errors "corrected" by even more errors. One person commenting was close to the right answer. I am fairly certain that I know the correct answer (it is a subject I have spent a good deal of time reading about in the past), but with all those other opinions, it does make me wonder.
How do we correct others? Do we have "ideas" that we stick to (regardless of evidence to the contrary) and criticize others based on our opinions (which are also incorrect?). When we do have to correct someone, are we also willing to be corrected? I am not speaking about matters of settled truth (like the Catholic faith), but matters of a less significant nature (whether it be motorcycles, food choices, relationship challenges, etc.).
This, as I have said before, is one of the worst things about the internet. Everyone has a voice; meaning everyone who really has no knowledge of a subject can speak up with all the authority of their dirty fingers. It reminds me of the fantastic story of the four blind men trying to identify an elephant. Everyone makes a mistake, because no one really knows what he is talking about.
Comments