Online Information Storage (Part 1)

Information is far more lasting, accessible, and likely to be found when it is kept online as opposed to only in books.  Both forms of information storage have their potential drawbacks, but the former has a scope that goes far beyond that of any physical library on record.  Although a person might prefer one or the other, it is clear that physical books will not likely win the war of relevance.  Despite these differences, both books and the internet share a common aspect of their natures: neither is a philosophical authority on its own.  Even if a writer makes accurate claims that can be logically verified, reason is the authority.

In this regard, the internet, despite being far more convenient and accessible for many people than specific books, shares the same epistemological failures or problems that written information does.  Neither books nor webpages can actually confirm whatever scientific or historical information they contain, except to correctly explain what does or does not follow from given scientific or historical ideas or to explain the mere evidences for them.  Although the internet is held up as the pinnacle of human knowledge, the vast majority of the information people document or discuss online cannot be proven to correspond to anything more than one's mere perceptions!

Another irony behind the internet is the fact that no one needs to ever consult anyone else to learn logical truths about logic itself or about the miscellaneous truths about one's own existence and experiences.  To learn these things, one needs only to look to reason and follow wherever it leads.  This renders the internet, books, and any form of communication between persons unnecessary when it comes to practically all strictly logical truths, even if some of the the more precise ones (for instance, some of the logical facts listed here [1]) are unlikely to be discovered by many people left to themselves.

The ever-expanding sea of online webpages is useful for quickly gathering information--not verifiable facts, but information--about things which one cannot learn by privately reasoning alone (one example is that only something like the internet can quickly convey reports of immediate political happenings in other countries).  However, it is not anything like the supreme epistemological savior that it is regarded as in many everyday situations.  It is little more than a digital set of interconnected pages and videos that can only reveal either logical facts that can ultimately be known prior to any interaction with another person, virtually or otherwise, or unverifiable scientific or historical claims.

There is nothing fallacious about recognizing the nature of online information storage for what it is and simply taking it at that.  Recognition of this does not mean that the internet is utterly useless!  The error arises when the internet is viewed as yet another avenue for appeals to authority that are perceived as valid; anything short of this is an epistemologically sound, potentially helpful use of online information.  Of course, it is precisely the position on the matter that only a minority is ever bold enough to take.

[1].  https://thechristianrationalist.blogspot.com/2018/12/a-list-of-neglected-truths.html