Goggling? What is it all about?

Well, webster’s dictionary explains the meaning of this word as: Look stupidly! But the word sounded similar to Googling!!

Googling, a commonly used word to google something, is misleading and confusing many internet users. It has lead to increased number of misconceptions and has affected ‘the way’ users are searching, learning and defining their ‘experiences’ in a dynamically changing internet space.

Before jumping on to the core, let me begin by taking a simple example. I will use the principles of Cybernetics to solve the problem. Initially you may feel that I digressed from the topic, but later you will discover that the ideas co-relate by eliminating the boundaries or say avoid ‘reductionism’ (also much hated by Stafford Beer (father of Cybernetics), and eminent physicist Feynman).

Q. Can you provide a simple definition of this word- PHYSICS?
Though the word is very abstract, you may come up with a rough definition in mind. A person may also think- “I know some things about the word, but a definition? Ok, let me Google it.” He might start Googling (you may discover later that it was more of a goggling activity) the keywords: “definition+ Physics”. The search may look something like this:

physics-google

Thanks to Google, which is such a life saviour at times like these, but did you get what you looked for? Google tries to give quick results and not the best results (Google has its +ve and –ve sides, but I’m deeply concerned about the ‘value addition to the user’s knowledge pool‘ at this moment).

What I found on page 1 are trashed results and pathetically defined definitions floating on the web! In terms of Wisdom of Crowd, as acknowledged by James Surowieki, the masses clicked on these results again and again. That made the results more prominent. I say that- PLAGUE is on the rise and masses are adopting incomplete definitions. Let me probe in deeper (I sound like a surgeon, but there’s something peculiar going on).

Result 1: www.thefreedictionary.com/physics :

“phys·ics”

n.

1. (used with a sing. verb) The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two, grouped in traditional fields such as acoustics, optics, mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics, particle physics, and plasma physics.

2. (used with a pl. verb) Physical properties, interactions, processes, or laws: the physics of supersonic flight.

3. (used with a sing. verb) Archaic The study of the natural or material world and phenomena; natural philosophy.

Ok let’s try another trick, say, a definition from Wikipedia (written collaboratively by volunteers from all around the world):

physics-wiki1

Physics (Greek: physis – φύσις meaning “nature”) a natural science, is the study of matter[1] and its motion through spacetime and all that derives from these, such as energy and force.[2] More broadly, it is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the world and universe behave.[3][4]

Let me also put the definition of the hot word PHYSICS from Webster’s Dictionary and consolidate my ideas further:

physics-wordweb

Did you notice: “LAWS of SOMETHING “. Ouch!!! Out of vain I also tried looking for a definition of the word in Oxford dictionary on Google:

physics-oxford

Wow- where did AMAZON pop-up from, when I was looking for a ‘clearer definition’ of the word PHYSICS!!!

Was my pursuit a complete failure?

May be…or may be not.

Using unconventional ways to crack the problem:

Let’s analyse it differently and think in terms of TAGS/ Metadata:

‘Matter’, ‘Energy’, ‘Science’, ‘Interactions’, etc. (I simply pulled some common words in this place). Though, the user could not come up with a clearer definition, you might have started defining Physics by now.

Hmm…Intelligence has to be used to take words from the environment, as the users end up collecting a huge variety (ever expected results like AMAZON!?). I recall what was taught in lecture at B-School: Look- Explore- Judge (de Bono). How do I do it? De Bono explains five stages, which are not based on an analysis of the normal thinking process: To-Lo-Po-So-Go.

To- indicates the aim, purpose or objective of the thinking. (To)

Lo- indicates the information available and the information we need. (Look around)

Po- is the stage of possibility. This is the generative stage.

So- narrows down, checks out and chooses from amongst the possibilities. This is the stage of conclusion, decision and choice. This is the result stage.

Go- indicates the ‘action step.’

Hmmm…To come out with a conventional meaning of the word PHYSICS I’m using non-conventional methods. Interesting! No it’s really discomforting- a user might have developed different opinion about things in his head by simply Googling. Anyways, now I’ve come to the step ‘SO’ and I need to go back to step ‘TO’.

So, I look back again in a different fashion and start eliminating incorrect ideas and try to orchestrate what I’ve done till now. Therefore, now on

  • I reuse the trash and still construct something meaningful.
  • I eliminate the wrong terms – as I didn’t like the previous definitions and words like:
  1. Department
  2. Something
  3. Amazon!
  4. Scientific method
  5. E=mc square
  6. Favourite subject physics, Etc…

After recursive eliminations and further aggregations, I came out with a small and simple definition of physics and am putting it as:

“Physics is the study of the world around us. It helps to identify and explore the interactions of various branches of science and mostly deals with areas consisting of matter and energy.”

I would categorise other words in a different bucket, i.e. properties of physics, origins of physics, etc. The closest definition I can still see is that of wikipedia, though now I have clearer perception about things than before. Neither have I defined the words incorrectly, nor have I framed something incredibly better than what was written before. I just tried making sense of the entire data.

The most interesting point is that you might have learnt a new way to look at things now.. Technological developments may outpace lot of things, but common sense! Newer technologies are getting developed on newer grounds and embed incredibly high amount of intelligence. Wait for my next log and I’ll show that the revolution has already begun! Till then enjoy Googling or may be enjoy using BING, the new web2.0 search engine by Microsoft :)

49 views