Google is a wonderful tool, ask it any question, and the answer will come back, or at least a million references that may give an answer will come back.
That is terrific, except for a few minor, or major flaws, depending on your mindset, such as:
Confirmation.
The certainty you get from Dr. Google tends to confirm the things you may already know, at least it confirms the path you are on, by giving you easy answers to the question you face. As a kid, in PG (pre-google) days, we had to go looking for the answer, feed our curiosity, critically review the few sources available, and in the process, stumble across other information that might just be a useful addition to the path we were on. Some would point out that Google in delivering millions of references does the same thing. However, we mostly only look at the first page, which reflects best what others asking similar questions have opened. Confirmation bias at work, silently, in the background.
No challenge
We do not have to work to find information, we just have to ask.
What if we do not know what to ask?
It seems to me we have lost the itch that is curiosity to see things that are different, divergent, and have a different perspective.
There is also another side to it. If we go to a library, and find the book we really like, the book next door is like the one you love, but just a bit different, that is the way libraries are organised, by topic. Google is not. It does not necessarily give you the thing most like what you are seeking, it just gives you a lead on the things that other people have sought by asking similar questions.
Currency
Google assumes that the newest stuff is the most useful. Often this is the case, but equally as often not. Increasingly the current stuff is just Google-fodder, crap, of little value.
Dr Google removes the random.
As I get older, it seems I have become more curious, As a result I seem to collect random facts, stories, reports, and pieces of information. Sometimes they get used quickly, often they sit on the metaphorical shelf for ages until a use emerges, or it gets merged with another thought at another time. This collection of random curiosities is facilitated by Google, but not encouraged as everything you ask is there when you ask, but you never know what it is that you have not asked. The beauty of having a ‘library’ of trivia is that at some point, that piece of trivia, that random fact or report will add enormously to whatever it is you are doing. Google will never know this, so you need to collect the disconnected random facts like squirrels keeping nuts for winter.
Serendipity cannot be digital
Serendipity comes about from unexpected outcomes, things that go against the common understanding, the tenuous thread you see between two logically disconnected facts. Making these connections requires a multidimensional ‘intelligence,’ not one dependent on a logical algorithm, no matter how ‘smart’ it might be.
Google has not only become the default for the world, it is becoming the primary source, along perhaps with its digital stablemate Facebook, that is if anything, better than Google at eliminating the instinctive drive for creativity and curiosity.
How do we encourage critical thinking when there are only two sources of information?
