The danger of the web: mediocrity

Bianca wrote:

Let us take the case of a musical work. To some, it seems evident that certain figures enjoy an undeserved and absurd success compared to others who are much more capable and deserving. One then wonders if it has always been this way or if this digital world has only served to exacerbate and worsen things. On the other hand, one also finds comfort in saying that time and history will set things right, since only products of value will endure and the rest will be discarded by natural selection.

But are we really sure of this? I believe that things are much more complex and even less comforting than how we would like to tell them, and in this regard, I offer some provocations:

-Time and the future will only confirm the success of those who already have it (if not of everyone, at least of most).

-Time and the future will only confirm the failure and oblivion of others (if not of everyone, at least of most).

-The history of the past did not select the absolute best, but only those whom it (history and historiography) deemed appropriate to select.

-The history of the past has erased all those whom it did not choose, not based on their value, but based on interest (which, however, often includes value as well).

I imagine how hair-raising these words might be, but I believe that, for the sake of honesty, sooner or later everyone must deal with them, or at least try to reflect on them if they do not want to remain clinging to the comforting but utopian idea, however productive it may sometimes be, that truth always wins.

Being certain of the previous provocations, one can discuss, for example, what value is or what is better. However, those are not the questions I want to raise and, with a little goodwill, it can be understood on its own. Rather, many, or some, may object with contrary examples. For instance, let us take the notorious case of Bach, about whom it is often said that in his time he was not given proper account and that he was only revalued with Mendelssohn, thus showing that history always puts things back in order. Bach, however, was not truly a person of little success, as the myth would have it and, even if Telemann seemed to be preferred over him by far at the time, history would have still passed him through for the roles and consideration he already had in life. However, one could object that being a court master is not enough to go down in history, but one must have quality. Certainly, and certainly not all (in fact perhaps none) court masters had Bach's qualities, but the point is rather to ask how many had his qualities but were unable to become court masters. None, some, many? Of these, we could never know, and not because history is unable to find them, but because the present (the present of each of them) has erased them irretrievably. This is an inevitable fact. It is a matter of selection (even if artificial, because in human nature there is little that is natural). How many Bachs and Telemanns could indeed have been endured by the courts of those times if not one or two at a time. If already in an era like the one we live in, where composers and artists of marvelous abilities rain down from everywhere, today—in a world where imagination is certainly not superior to that of the Renaissance man—then what should we suppose about those so prolific centuries?

I remember that on the first day of Politecnico, the professor of Analysis I began with a speech that made me think: she said that, since there were too many freshmen that year, they would have to somehow (by any means) reduce us to at least one third. And so they did. Now it is legitimate to think that those who remained were the best and most deserving, while the rest did not have the skills to become engineers. Even if in the following years I never had reason to doubt it, a question already that day occurred to me: but what if only those who would later be eliminated and judged inadequate had presented themselves for that course, then what kind of engineers would have emerged? And then I realized that this could indeed be the real situation, that is, exactly the one we were in at that moment: the others, the truly better ones, simply might not have enrolled in the course.

There is also to be considered that perhaps the beauty and value of a work might not depend solely on intrinsic factors. Who can guarantee us that many of those much-vituperated false composers are not actually better than many of those we consider such? As long as it involves evaluating technical ability based on certain more or less shared parameters, it is one thing; but from there on, who knows? After all, a work becomes beautiful also thanks to the fact that it is considered beautiful. With this, I do not want to surrender to what I would like to fight. I only want to consider also"}

this aspect of reality, without denying it for convenience. Art is indeed also communication and expression of inner contents towards a community, and the sharing and understanding of this communication is in itself a part of the beauty, intrinsic if you will, of the work of art. From which it also follows that a work can never be beautiful or superior in an absolute sense, but only as the fruit of a social process. But here I am going too far and I will stop.

If all this is too disturbing, pretend I didn't write it and take, if necessary, only the first part as good.

Dear Bianca, there may be some truth in what you write... but there is also a lot of pessimism.

If I look at the history of music, I also see many composers who in their time were considered great and important and today are practically ignored and who, not always, but often, if they are resurrected from oblivion, then return to that oblivion. Therefore, this means that time and the future have taken their course. Then, this does not take away from the fact that they can be revalued but, in any case, I repeat, it demonstrates that time and the future have taken their course.

Above, I was talking about Salieri and Mozart. In those times, Salieri held an importance even greater than Mozart in the eyes of contemporaries, but in a very short time, the judgment was completely overturned.

An opera becomes beautiful and important only when it is recognized as such. But often to be so it must wait for some time; it is not necessarily so upon its first impact. Beethoven's Great Fugue had to wait a century to become the absolute masterpiece that it is.

It is true, however, that many composers of the past may have remained in the shadows only because they did not know how to find - or were not given - the right space, but if that were the case and if their works are still traceable, I trust that sooner or later this will come out: many musicologists are searching for something unknown and valid that comes from the past.

Today, composers who decide to compose a certain type of music - I do not use adjectives so as not to create resentment or controversy - know that only a few chosen ones are able to survive on the fruit of their work, and this is because, above all, the musical tastes of our contemporaries move on other musical fronts.

Perhaps not all those who manage to live as composers are worthy, and perhaps others who do not succeed would instead be very worthy. I don't know. Perhaps yes, perhaps no! But today all composers have the possibility through the Internet to leave an acoustic trace of their work and... who knows, perhaps tomorrow history, time, the future will decree their posthumous importance. A very slim consolation? Yes it is, but there is nothing to be done.

I think that if one is convinced of one's own artistic abilities, one must persevere even if then, to make a living, one must do something else.

danielescarpetti wrote:

I think that if someone is convinced of their own artistic abilities, they must persevere even if they then have to do something else to make a living.

it is very bitter but I agree with you.

one thing is work for support in life.

one thing is the activity in which one feels the growth and edification of one's own person.

if then the two things coincide, it is a great stroke of luck.

danielescarpetti wrote:

Dear Bianca, there may be some truth in what you write... but there is also a lot of pessimism.

...

If you have the patience to delve deeper into what I wrote before, you will realize that what at first seemed like pessimism to you is nothing more than a nudge to explore an uncomfortable aspect of reality that is rarely taken into consideration. Not recognizing or not wanting to face these possibilities eventually becomes an obstacle rather than an advantage for understanding. It's just that one must prepare their spirit to face even that which might displease us, which is a demanding task. It is much more comforting to believe that there exists a providential force that moves the course of history and gradually reveals the truth. If we think about it carefully, the fact that a composer of little value has been put back in their place by historiography is not, in itself, an extraordinary event; it doesn't teach us much new about the reality of things. Just as the fact that there may have been composers of great value whose traces have been lost and who may be rediscovered and revalued sooner or later. These are things that have already happened and will happen again, fortunately.

It would be more shocking, instead, to discover how many potential artists of extraordinary value were never even able to express themselves, never even left any trace of theirs to be discovered, no new gift for humanity. This is the true problem and the true drama that should be addressed: asking oneself if this is something that can truly happen and, if so, why it happens and to what extent, and understanding where one can intervene to remedy it. I find it rather naive, instead, to expect or hope that anyone will of their own accord choose culture, critical sense, study, sacrifice, to refine a capacity for independent judgment; rather, they much more comfortably rely on any one of the numerous ranks of the new (or old) media priests. Because why should they do it, just because it would be better or right according to us?

This path, however, leads us back to the beginning of the reasoning, when I jokingly spoke of authority: the first step to take would be precisely to evaluate the quality of the "mediators" (a discussion that has already appeared in the past on the forum). Every work has a need for a mediator. As an expression and communication, although of a completely particular and certainly asymmetrical character, it has a need for a means of transmission. From this follows the immense responsibility, above all, of teachers, of masters, whose main purpose, since time immemorial, should be precisely to scout out and provide the means to best express the talents of those who have them. To say that the solution lies entirely here is obviously ridiculous, but it is a step. Just realizing that in history there may have been or may be "geniuses" potentially superior to the various ones that populate our libraries and our personal myths, and that the latter are actually a bit less mythical than we portray them, would be an unexpected leap. After all, how many of us harshly criticize the tendency of the "common folk" to idolize presumed superstars and then in their own bedroom do the same thing, even if the poster, instead of a lovely young lady, shows an old man sticking his tongue out? The attitude is identical; what changes, and perhaps not even by much, are tastes and circumstances.

Pursuant to this, I repeat, one must always consider that our objectives may not be illusory, if not inconsistent.

Each of us on this earth seeks, in one way or another, their own success. To think that everyone can achieve the same success is a contradiction. To think that those who are more deserving than those who have achieved success should take that person's place is contrary to the facts. To think that a system can exist and that one must try to put it into practice, which is capable of rewarding exclusively theoretical merits, is wrong (and not pessimistic) and therefore unattainable.

What should be done instead is to understand why, or rather how, reality manifests itself in a certain way and, where possible, intervene to improve it. How can one expect Functional Analysis to achieve the success of Coca-Cola? The ranks of those who can digest the former are infinitesimal compared to the latter. Thus, one should first understand that it is appropriate to limit one's field and turn toward that and cultivate it. In this sense, I do not find the attitude of some circles of composers, in closing themselves into what are often criticized as circles for adepts only, to be so wrong. Of course, these in turn should not snub or hinder other realities, since they manage a certain power, but rather favor their proliferation.

And then perhaps one should look less toward the future"}

(and the past) and more to the present. In a hundred thousand years, assuming the human race still exists, probably even the success of Homer will be forgotten (in fact, it already is for the most part). It is simply a matter of numbers; those of the things that stay in a man's head are not very large. Therefore, to say that today is easier because there is internet and anyone can leave a mark on it is another puerile illusion: sure, you can leave your grain of sand, among many others on an infinite beach of the ocean of the present, smaller grains, larger pebbles, some rocks, and everything will be slowly crushed, leveled by the inexorable breakers in the undertow of time.

It is very likely - or certainly certain - that I am naive and even puerile, but I think that the two true discriminations that have been made in the field of Western Art in the past - and naturally on practically everything - are towards the entire female universe and towards people living in poverty.

I think of Mozart's sister and Mendelssohn's, and above all, the many women who did not necessarily have composer brothers but who were unable to express themselves in fields considered until recently to be practically exclusively male domain.

There it is! We have certainly lost so much!

Today these two risks are very minimized, culture is within reach of (almost) everyone and the possibilities too, and this is also thanks to the Internet which, I repeat: is the most democratic thing ever invented by humanity.

danielescarpetti wrote:

It is very likely - or certainly certain - that I am naive and even puerile

I truly apologize, Daniele, for the terms I chose; it was not my intention to refer them to you, whose ideas as you know I respect immensely; it is just my way of writing which sometimes is not felicitous, I hope you will forgive me.

danielescarpetti wrote:

the entire female universe and towards people living in poverty.

But this is by no means a small thing...

danielescarpetti wrote:

Today these two risks are greatly minimized, culture is within reach of (almost) everyone and opportunities too, and this, also thanks to the Internet which I repeat: is the most democratic thing that has ever been invented by humanity.

If that were the case, then what meaning would the discussion started by Simone have?

Of course it is not a little, but .... unfortunately it is so much!

If, however, we agree - and here you must tell me if we do - that today these discriminations have been at least in large part overcome - with the hope that they will be completely overcome - it also means that anyone can access the possibility of being recognized as "great" by the current world and by posterity.

From my point of view, the Internet is a showcase that gives this possibility to everyone, regardless of social, economic, geographical, cultural, and sexual condition.

To access the Internet, it is sufficient to have a connection and learn how to use it.

Of course - and here we come to Simone's perplexities - making it so that for the first time in human history everyone - indiscriminately everyone - can express themselves and have their own "audience", makes the possibility of being able to choose what is truly the "best" and the "worst" infinitely more difficult and risky, but it is a risk that is worth taking in the name of total "visibility". Of course, there is - or there should be - a limit to everything, which is dictated simply by the old Etiquette in an appropriately updated manner for our times: education should always be at the base of our relationship with others, whether the relationship is real or virtual.

And it is unfortunately true that today many Internet users often intervene inappropriately on everything in a rude and violent manner. But, let me say that this does not only happen on the Internet but unfortunately is a symptomatology - a characteristic - of our times. It is certainly equally true that on this platform where there is also the possibility of anonymity, the level of incivility and nastiness increases. To this, however - saving those attitudes punishable by law - one cannot respond by limiting its use. Democracy must be all-encompassing, and only through it can we arrive at having a better civilization. And of this - it is one of the few things that is true - I am firmly convinced.

But returning to the possibilities that the web gives today - to stay in the artistic field - I think, for example, of the many young comedians who first appeared around here and are now in theaters, on television ... If this portal had not existed, they would have remained emeritus unknowns. Surely among them there will be some to forget and others who will become great even for posterity.

And so...!

I believe that if we throw art into the middle of it, the discussion becomes significantly more complicated, because in the artistic field it is always very difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish the best from the worst: I still remember the discussion we had "better Beethoven's fifth or the society of gluttons?", in which Thallo pushed us to find objective values to be able to say why "the society of gluttons" should be worse than a Beethoven symphony.

In the scientific field, the discussion becomes a bit simpler; science sets the goal of studying physical reality, therefore those "few" things we have understood, we have made our own through what is known as the scientific method: observation of the phenomenon, enunciation of the theory, experimental verification to confirm or reject the initial theory. If a theory is confirmed, at least in our perceptive reality, it is true and unassailable. But when talking about art, it's not like that...

Certainly, all the reasoning Bianca makes seems sound to me; pessimism or not, it was time that decided and has often penalized those who could have been more deserving than others, even if, as Daniele says, everything can be re-evaluated over time.

Today, however, to make a reasoning that is not biased, we should put ourselves in the shoes of the "masses," meaning people who are totally ignorant and, having preferred the wall, the reed, and the PlayStation to books, are totally incapable of discerning what is good information from what is not.

I still remember when I was little, I scanned some documents for a friend's mother. "Simone, you're a phenomenon!" she told me, "How did you manage to put my documents on the computer screen?". I remained stunned, and looking at her with shocked eyes, I thought to myself: "Geez, what is she talking about? I only pressed a button!".

We therefore find ourselves reasoning with people, those of the masses, who are totally unprepared to face a new world, the digital one, full of information, without the slightest ability to discern right from wrong.

What is the risk of this? That the masses, in a clear majority compared to professionals, mark their territory of ignorance by trampling on that of the sector's professionals who, erroneously in my view, do not even waste their breath trying to claim the importance of certain acquired truths.

In light of this reasoning, I am starting to seriously re-evaluate the behavior of conductors like Toscanini or, to stay within our circle, Thallo's bold responses. All paths to quickly put an end to the pomposity of those who, although ignorant, allow themselves to speak from a position of low knowledge with the intent of casting a bad light on someone who is instead a true connoisseur of that cultural sector.

Since an authority will never be established because this fake democracy is based only on the idea of freedom of speech (fake because it is only feasible on the internet), in my opinion, the solution is to nip these people in the bud at the start of their wacky discussions, writing in such a way that, after a resounding embarrassment, they no longer have any way to reply.

In my opinion, the solution is not so much to establish an authority, because otherwise freedom of thought and speech would also decay on the internet; the fixed target should be the protection of those who are reading, writing in such a way that the differences in content between the two interlocutors are set down in black and white and unequivocally. Only in this way can credibility be lost by those who talk nonsense.

Responding to Paolo, who faces the problem of trying to find a "soft" way to say things to those who ask him for an evaluation...

I do not know nice ways to tell a person that their work was mediocre.

If I am a painter and an "improvised colleague" comes to ask me for my judgment on a job he did for a client, if the wall is not smooth but full of bubbles, the paint cracked, I don't say to him: "You did well, but if next time you avoid making bubbles in the wall it would be better"; I tell him: "You did a shitty job, scrape this wall and repaint it properly before the landlord sees what you've done and kicks you out with two kicks where you feel best!".

My high school professors, if I did a terrible philosophy assignment, would write it in red on the paper in beautiful handwriting: "Mediocre". On my assignment, if I did a bad job, I never found written: "Well done Simone, you didn't hit the mark but I appreciate the effort, try to do better next time!".

Today it seems to me that people suffer from excessive bon ton. Not that people should be hit with swear words, but giving them what they deserve, yes.

If someone makes themselves public, they cannot expect to receive only"

consents, he must also accept negative opinions, especially if he is the one proposing it by asking for an evaluation of his work.

danielescarpetti wrote:

However, if we agree - and here you must tell me if we do - that today these discriminations have been at least largely overcome - with the hope that they are completely overcome - it also means that anyone can access the possibility of being recognized as "great," to the current world and to posterity.

As usual, it depends a lot on what we consider democracy.

If we mean it in the etymological sense, then we must evaluate in what way the internet is an expression of the power of the people: an inexhaustible discussion. I would just like to point out a couple of things.

Democracy as a political form that has evolved over time has (so far) never foreseen that every single individual could express and enforce their own law, but rather that every single individual could cast a vote on a proposal presented by a few. Otherwise, it would not be democracy, but something similar to what the ancient Greeks called "ochlocracy." This means that this type of democratic spirit is inherently incompatible with a space like the internet. As I was saying, it is simply a matter of numbers. In a democracy, a choice is manifested regarding a well-defined proposal and, above all, extreme care must be taken to ensure that this proposal is accessible and reaches everyone's attention, not just those who happen to come across it by chance. Being able to write the first thing that comes to mind on a wall, without being fined, has nothing to do with the democratic spirit. Today, they should teach this distinction as early as primary school. When someone publishes something online, because the system allows it, we are immediately led to think that this is a democratic expression. However, it then happens that what was published never passes before anyone's eyes (and this happens most of the time), and therefore the hoped-for democratic mechanism fatally jams. Well, one might say, then all that is left to do is work so that that message reaches as wide an audience as possible. As Simone noted before, whoever conceives an idea, a work, or a theory is almost always unfit to promote it with their own means; and then, one might say, rely on a professional; but professionals of such a kind cost (and not just money, alas, but above all compromises). And then what? At the very least, we have fallen back into the situation of the past, that of the poor and women, to be clear.

However, there is something much less obvious that causes this mechanism to inexorably jam and fail. As I reiterate from the beginning, it is the numbers. Suppose, in fact, that everyone had the same material means to bring each of their own "proposals" to the completeness of the plethora of "voters": but how many judgments would there be at this point subjected to scrutiny by each one, assuming that each person had the capacity for judgment and discernment? Human beings, no matter how evolved they may be, are finite beings, limited—in fact, the majority... are very limited.

You see, therefore, that a certain concept of internet democracy is only a vain illusion, which gives nothing but false hopes. And you see again how important and indispensable the function of mediators is, who in this case are not teachers, but the managers of information flows themselves. Even just to do a trivial test, try to see what the popularity of a video is before or after some random journalist has spoken about it on television—and not everyone can go on television.

If instead, by democracy, we mean the possibility of shouting at the moon whatever we want, well then I believe democratic humanity has been so since time immemorial, and the air we breathe is even more democratic than the internet.

TheSimon wrote:

Responding to Paolo, who faces the problem of trying to find a "soft" way to say things to those who ask him for an evaluation...

I do not know nice ways to tell a person that their work was mediocre.

Simone, I urge you not to give in to this temptation. Perhaps being "rude," to use a euphemism, will bring you more immediate consensus and satisfaction, but in the long run, it could impoverish your soul. Knowing something enriches the spirit, teaching it noblely; boasting about it and using it to humiliate someone consumes it.

Bianca wrote:

Democracy as a political form that has evolved over time has (so far) never envisioned that every single individual could express and enforce their own law, but rather that every single individual could cast a vote on a proposal presented by a few. Otherwise, it would not be democracy, but something similar to what the ancient Greeks called “ochlocracy”. This means that this type of democratic spirit is inherently incompatible with a space like the internet. As I was saying, it is simply a matter of numbers. In a democracy, a choice is manifested regarding a well-defined proposal and, above all, extreme care must be taken to ensure that this proposal is accessible and reaches everyone's attention, not just those who happen to come across it by chance. Being able to write the first thing that comes to mind on a wall, without being fined, has nothing to do with the democratic spirit. Today, they should teach this distinction as early as primary school. When someone publishes something online, because the system allows it, we are immediately led to think that this is a democratic expression. However, it then happens that what was published never passes before anyone's eyes (and this happens most of the time), and therefore the hoped-for democratic mechanism fatally jams. Well, one might say, then one only needs to strive so that that message reaches as wide an audience as possible. As Simone noted before, whoever conceives an idea, a work, or a theory is almost always unfit to promote it with their own means; and then, one might say, rely on a professional; but professionals of such a kind cost (and not just money, alas, but above all compromises). And then what? At the very least, we have fallen back into the situation of the past, that of the poor and women, to be understood.

However, there is something much less obvious that causes this mechanism to jam and fail inexorably. As I reiterate from the beginning, it is the numbers. Suppose, in fact, that everyone had the same material means to bring each of their own "proposals" to the completeness of the plethora of "voters": but how many judgments would there be at this point subjected to scrutiny by each person, assuming that everyone had the capacity for judgment and discernment? Human beings, no matter how evolved they may be, are finite beings, limited—in fact, the majority... are very limited.

You see, then, that a certain concept of internet democracy is merely a vain illusion, which gives nothing but false hopes. And you see even more how important and indispensable the function of mediators is, who in this case are not teachers, but the managers of information flows themselves. Even just to perform a trivial test, try to see what the popularity of a video is before or after some random journalist has spoken about it on television—and not everyone can go on television.

If, instead, by democracy we mean the possibility of shouting at the moon whatever we want, well then I believe that democratic humanity has been so since time immemorial, and the air we breathe is even more democratic than the internet.

From my point of view, democracy is that political form which, having evolved over time, provides that every single individual can express their own point of view on anything, bringing their thought to the attention, above all, of those who have been elected to govern and represent us within the sphere of power. To do this, one is not allowed to deface walls, but to use those channels that information makes available and, I would say, a tool like the Internet does so in a way that has never been granted to us before.

But not only that. Take the case of the votes on the referendum that was just voted on. How many people through the Internet were able to express their opinion and campaign for a Yes or for a No. All those who wanted to do so. This certainly did not happen in the times of the referendum on Republic or Monarchy or on Divorce .... There, only those affiliated with parties, or pro and con associations, were able to express themselves. Today, with this tool, and sitting comfortably at home, each of us can let know what we think about anything to anyone who wants to read it. One has the possibility to create discussions—hopefully always civil ones—between people we could never reach and to grow together. Then I repeat: it is a matter of maturity and civic education.

So it is not about shouting at the moon whatever we want, but about trying to be "protagonists" of what concerns us for better or worse, with the hope, therefore—at least that much—that what we write can be grasped and heard not only by the air we breathe, as in past times,

And for Art, Simone, I return to the initial discussion: if today's man, and even more so that of the future, decrees and will decree that the"

"società dei magnaccioni" is better than Beethoven's Fifth, ... what can I tell you???? It is not up to us to decide entirely, but each of us and those who come after us will make the choices we deem most appropriate.

You are all very rich in ideas and I read you with pleasure. I thank Bianca, who captures this my difficulty in judging and expressing my judgment and shifts the choice of behavior also to a "spiritual" level. What Simone says is also correct, as is what Daniele articulates. The example of the word "mediocre" written in red by our professors sympathetically reminds me of school desks and moves me (a bad sign!)... however, I would like to put forward the statement that the "nobility" that Bianca invokes takes into account our position and the exercise of our roles. No one tells us that we must act like "professors," unless we were appointed as such... but then, she says... we cannot have our say......I don't think that is the case. Simone knows... we have a different "approach" and we sympathetically laugh at each other's behavior.

As I proceed with reading the posts, I feel that we are moving away from an important part of the topic's initial content.

Anyway, I thought I had seen it all, but now I read "thanks" to Facebook, where there are people posting images of private chats with publishers/orchestras or showing photos of Christmas greeting cards received... just to show that person X (perhaps because they are considered important or prominent) thought of them. As if receiving a standardized greeting card, on which someone has written your name, changes much.

... mah, does knowing that a publisher or a famous composer from Turmo sent me well wishes enrich you?

I wonder? Why would someone do this? ...sterile self-proclamation? So, back to square one.

Hi, Simone.

There could be many solutions. Someone above, if I'm not mistaken, has brought a few into play.

However, let's consider that it would be ideally impossible to clean the web of so-called ....bunglers.

I also think that mediocrity attracts mediocrity and therefore, in the end, those who pursue a right, straight, and so to speak... truthful path, will find themselves at the entrance of the same gate ready to enter it.

What I mean is that at the end of the 1800s in France, painters like Cabanel and others by his side reigned over everything and everyone, while artists of the caliber of Renoir were looked upon askance by high society. History, precisely, has weeded out the false feedback and the truth has emerged.

It is very true that today it's a different story but... alas... I think I am the last person who can give advice for a solution.

Anyway, the proposed solution of giving a score or a logo that clarifies the quality of a source based on a preliminary examination that effectively vets the comment or the post, etc. etc., is not bad...

Very much available for change.

Thanks again.

Simone's response given to that guy in the first post only anticipated by a few days what I recently read on Facebook from a Doctor who addressed the reader community in this way: "ALL COMMENTS ARE BEING DELETED. I must clarify that this page is not a place where people who know nothing can have a "civil debate" to discuss as equals with me. It is a page where I, who have studied these subjects for thirty-five years, attempt to explain in an accessible manner how things are, using my time for this purpose free of charge, which is generally remunerated in extremely generous amounts. Making concepts accessible requires simplification: but everything I write is correct and by always including sources, anyone who wishes can personally verify the truthfulness of what is reported. However, one cannot engage in debate with me. I hope I have clarified the matter: here, only those who have studied have the right to speak, not the common citizen. Science is not democratic".

Simone's reply to the doctor's publication was also amusing, following comments from several indignant people: "I completely agree. If until yesterday you were sitting on a wall smoking weed, where the hell are you going to go to talk with two scientists discussing nuclear physics? Ridiculous!!".

I believe I am very much in agreement with the doctor's final words in the post: "Science is not democratic", it is what it is, unless we are talking about unproven theories, in which case the matter becomes more delicate. But what has been experimentally verified is right and must be accepted.

On YouTube, there are video after video trying to prove that electrical energy can be produced with perpetual motion. Just type perpetual motion on YouTube and a million results come up where everyone wants to show us how they have discovered how to self-produce electrical energy with the spark of a lighter.

If there are idiots who manage to believe such nonsense, in my opinion, it is right that they be humiliated by those who know things because they have studied them and thus, as in the case of the doctor, they would do well to keep quiet instead of playing scientist when they don't even remember how to do division anymore.

But according to their empty heads, if the solution had been inside a lighter, wouldn't scientists have already thought of it?

The problem arises from a lack of desire to know, because the internet has made everyone a know-it-all, despite them understanding nothing about anything and having studied nothing. This leads to making examples, and it is easy to fall into the traps of those who sit there telling lies.

You are right Stefano, the story of perpetual motion is truly absurd and can only fool those who are totally ignorant in the matter.

Once a friend (very ignorant in scientific matters) came to me, all euphoric about having discovered how to produce free electricity.

Imagine my face...

- I found a solution to produce electricity practically for free! Just take a drill and connect it to a car alternator. We connect a battery to the alternator which charges, and from there you draw the current -.

There, we are in the hands of these people who not only do not even know the fundamental basics of physics and electrical engineering but who shouldn't even have the right to speak!

Responding to Daniele Scarpetti, one cannot be democratic with certain people. If you don't know, you must remain silent and listen. Have you ever seen me take part in your discussions about Beethoven? Regarding Beethoven, I only know what I was able to read in books to prepare for the music history exam. I have never gone as deep as you have, so why should I come and give my opinion, from the depths of my ignorance, to do what? To act important? I prefer to read from you and learn. It is something these gentlemen should start taking seriously: it is called humility.

TheSimon wrote:

Just take a drill and connect it to a car alternator. To the alternator, we connect a battery that charges, and from there you draw the current -.

...I hope it was a manual drill, one of those old-fashioned ones

ttw wrote:

...I hope it was a hand drill, one of those ancient ones

Obviously not !! One that runs on electricity!

TheSimon wrote:

Responding to Daniele Scarpetti, one cannot be democratic with certain people. If one does not know, one must remain silent and listen. Have you ever seen me take part in your discussions about Beethoven? Regarding Beethoven, I only know what I was able to read in books to prepare for my music history exam. I have never gone as deep as you have, so why should I come and give my opinion, from the depths of my ignorance, to do what? To act important? I prefer to read from you and learn. It is something these gentlemen should start taking seriously: it is called humility.

Regarding the topic of the countless hoaxes on the web, much is being discussed lately, especially those of a political nature: see the Grillo-Pitruzzella clash.

Look Simone, democracy does not mean that one must accept everything incompetent people claim without reacting. You, for example, are right to reply sharply, demanding accountability for the statements of those who assert lies on topics about which you feel particularly prepared. You are doing the right thing, but this does not mean that it should—or is right to—be decided from above who can or cannot have their say on a topic. Nothing should be censored unless it exceeds what is punishable by law or offends people.

These days, for example, there is a major debate raging regarding vaccines: something I would say is of vital importance. The vast majority of the scientific-medical world is in favor of vaccination, and yet strong pockets of resistance exist, starting with those who claim that everything is driven by pharmaceutical companies.

Now, I think that, regardless of what we personally believe, one cannot believe the problem can be solved by censoring one part or another. Both have the right to express themselves and to justify their opinions, and this... applies to all fields of human thought.

So, if someone comes here and writes that for them Beethoven's music—but another composer would do just as well—is rubbish, that it is worth nothing, if that is their feeling, it is right that they write it, without being insulted, censored, or put on a pillory for doing so. The fact remains that each of us can, if we wish, demonstrate to them that they are talking utter nonsense. And... viva viva!

That's what I think!

danielescarpetti wrote:

The topic of the countless hoaxes on the web is being discussed a lot these days, especially those of a political nature: see the Grillo-Pitruzzella clash.

Look Simone, democracy does not mean that one must accept everything that incompetent people claim without reacting. You, for example, are right to reply sharply, demanding accountability for the statements of those who assert lies on topics about which you feel particularly prepared. You are doing the right thing, but this does not mean that it should be decided from above—or is right to decide—who can or cannot have their say on a topic. Nothing should be censored that does not exceed what is punishable by law or what offends people.

These days, for example, there is a major debate raging regarding vaccines: something I would say is of vital importance. The vast majority of the scientific-medical world is in favor of vaccination, and yet strong pockets of resistance exist, starting with those who claim that everything is driven by pharmaceutical companies.

Now, I think that, regardless of what we personally think, one cannot believe that the problem can be solved by censoring one side or the other. Both have the right to express themselves and to justify their opinions, and this... applies to all fields of human thought.

So, if someone comes here and writes that for them Beethoven's music—but another composer is fine too—is rubbish, that it is worth nothing, if that is their feeling, it is right that they write it, without being insulted, censored, or put on blast for doing so. The fact remains that each of us can, if we wish, demonstrate to them that they are talking absolute nonsense. And... viva vio!

That's what I think!

I am perfectly fine with it... As long as it remains a personal opinion. If someone comes to tell me that Beethoven sucks and that Emiaiudini is better (which has actually happened to me), I can justify my dissent; in my head, that person remains an "unprepared idiot," and I can even get annoyed by the fact that someone who doesn't even know how notes are arranged on a staff comes to me, having completed some studies, wanting to convince me that they are right while speaking without knowing anything. In the end, that is just their opinion and it takes nothing away from me. However, there are things that are essential; it is one thing to express an opinion, but quite another to want to bring up absurd arguments devoid of any scientific basis to convince someone that perpetual motion exists. Let's be clear... If a mediocre person wants to waste all their life trying to build a perpetual motion machine, it takes nothing away from me; the risk arises when they want to convince other people that it is possible when the scientific community is very clear on the subject: "It is not possible to build a machine that generates any type of energy with an efficiency greater than the energy used to make it work." If in a nuclear power plant (which, for the sake of illustrating something else, is effectively nothing more than a steam plant) you heat water which, by producing steam, turns turbines that, connected to an electric generator, produce electricity... The energy you used to heat the water is always greater than the energy you obtained after all these steps, precisely because in each of these steps there are dissipative forces that disperse part of the energy. It is a concept as old as time and proven in every possible way. What do these charlatans want to argue about? Wouldn't it be better if they just kept quiet?"

TheSimon wrote:

the risk arises when they try to convince other people that it is possible when the scientific community is very clear on the subject: "It is not possible to build a machine that generates any type of energy with an efficiency greater than the energy used to make it work". If in a nuclear power plant (which, for the sake of illustration, is actually nothing more than a steam power plant) you heat water which, by producing steam, turns turbines that, connected to an electric generator, produce electricity. The energy you used to heat the water is always greater than the energy you obtained after all these steps, precisely because in each of these steps there are dissipative forces that disperse part of the energy. It is a concept as old as time and proven in every possible way. What do these charlatans want to argue about? Wouldn't it be better if they kept quiet?

Agreed!

But speaking of science and politics, the risk arises even more - naturally from my point of view - when someone is elected president of the United States - that is to say, of the greatest economic-military power in the world - who absolutely denies the existence of the greenhouse effect and human responsibility in this regard. If, moreover, the web and its manipulation play a significant role in the vote cast for that character, we are already at the peak of the problem we are facing in these forum pages.

And yet, even though I am deeply concerned about what could happen as a result of these elections, I continue to think that this is what democracy is and that the risk we must run is that the ideas "of the mediocre" may prevail precisely thanks to the most democratic means of communication invented by man. But I trust that in the end democracy has its antibodies against such things, and I am confident that it will be so

Read this passage

http://www.ilfattoquotidiano.it/2017/01/10/giovanni-allevi-a-roma-ancora-una-prova-di-inadeguatezza/3307588/

The latest episode is nothing more than yet another demonstration of how economic powers can make anything possible: characters of dubious or very poor acting quality who suddenly transform into leading actors; managers and entrepreneurs who proclaim themselves statesmen of unquestionable level; pop musicians who conduct symphony orchestras.