Table of Contents Section 1: This section serves as an introductory tutorial on four inference strategies:
Brought to you by curio. What makes this paradoxical is that the vastly increased access to information and knowledge we have today does not empower us or make us more cognitively autonomous. We are experiencing a fundamental paradigm shift in our relationship to knowledge.
Seen in this light, reputation has become a central pillar of collective intelligence today. It is the gatekeeper to knowledge, and the keys to the gate are held by others.
The way in which the authority of knowledge is now constructed makes us reliant on what are the inevitably biased judgments of other people, most of whom we do not know. Let me give some examples of this paradox. In the average-case scenario, you trust newspapers, magazines or TV channels that endorse a political view which supports scientific research to summarise its findings for you.
In this latter case, you are twice-removed from the sources: Or, take an even more uncontroversial truth that I have discussed at length elsewhere: After publication, a movement of skeptics grew and started to collect evidence about the alleged hoax.
According to the Flat Earth Society, one of the groups that still denies the facts, the Moon landings were staged by Hollywood with the support of Walt Disney and under the artistic direction of Stanley Kubrick.
Also, is it not suspicious that a programme that involved more thanpeople for six years was shut down abruptly? The great majority of the people we would consider reasonable and accountable myself included will dismiss these claims by laughing at the very absurdity of the hypothesis although there have been serious and documented responses by NASA against these allegations.
Yet, if I ask myself on what evidentiary basis I believe that there has been a Moon landing, I must admit that my evidence is quite poor, and that I have never invested a second trying to debunk the counter-evidence accumulated by these conspiracy theorists.
What I personally know about the facts mixes confused childhood memories, black-and-white television news, and deference to what my parents told me about the landing in subsequent years.
Still, the wholly secondhand and personally uncorroborated quality of this evidence does not make me hesitate about the truth of my beliefs on the matter.
My reasons for believing that the Moon landing took place go far beyond the evidence I can gather and double-check about the event itself. In those years, we trusted a democracy such as the US to have a justified reputation for sincerity.
Without an evaluative judgment about the reliability of a certain source of information, that information is, for all practical purposes, useless. What a mature citizen of the digital age should be competent at is not spotting and confirming the veracity of the news.
Rather, she should be competent at reconstructing the reputational path of the piece of information in question, evaluating the intentions of those who circulated it, and figuring out the agendas of those authorities that leant it credibility.
Whenever we are at the point of accepting or rejecting new information, we should ask ourselves: Where does it come from? Does the source have a good reputation? Who are the authorities who believe it? What are my reasons for deferring to these authorities?
Such questions will help us to get a better grip on reality than trying to check directly the reliability of the information at issue. In a hyper-specialised system of the production of knowledge, it makes no sense to try to investigate on our own, for examplethe possible correlation between vaccines and autism.
It would be a waste of time, and probably our conclusions would not be accurate. These new competences constitute a sort of second-order epistemology.
They prepare us to question and assess the reputation of an information source, something that philosophers and teachers should be crafting for future generations.
Her latest book is Reputation:1) Describe at least 5 steps in a process to collect digital evidence to the time you testify that you consider important. Please explain why they are important. There are many steps in the process to collect digital evidence on site of a crime scene: the first step begins with attaining a legal search warrant that legally permits the phsyical seizure of device 98%(58).
How to Preserve Digital Evidence in Case of Legal Investigation. However, before even beginning to collect evidence and create the chain of custody, other potentially valuable evidence needs to be collected at the scene of the crime (in this case, Smith's workspace).
Now that the scene has been documented, the process of constructing. 5 steps to the Adjudication Process Essay. B. Pages:2 Words This is just a sample. To get a unique essay.
We will write a custom essay sample on 5 steps to the Adjudication Process specifically for you for only $ $/page.
5 steps in a process to collect digital evidence ; Medical Billing and Coding ;. Misc thoughts, memories, proto-essays, musings, etc. And on that dread day, the Ineffable One will summon the artificers and makers of graven images, and He will command them to give life to their creations, and failing, they and their creations will be dedicated to the flames.
The following overview should help you better understand how to cite sources using MLA eighth edition, including the list of works cited and in-text citations. Describe at least 5 steps in a process to collect digital evidence to the time you testify that you consider important.
your text focuses on the techniques and tools you would use to collect, preserve, and analyze digital evidence.