Response to the article "A Point of View: Does more information mean we know less?"

The main point of the article “A Point of View: Does more information mean we know less?” is that people in modern day do not read books deeply. The article claims that we need to get the deep wisdom behind the typed letters, instance of just skimming thorough books and remembering nothing. The general idea of the article is irrefutable, but there are some points that are inaccurate. There are three main points that is inaccurate – points about “good” books, religious ceremony, and idea of religious books.

The most inaccurate point the author had suggested is that he emphasized the effect of “good” books. The author says that if the book is rare, the reader will treat the book more cautiously, thus reading it deeper. However, this is not logical. Thing that should be stressed is the knowledge inside the books, not the rarity of the books. Even if the book is a cheap paperback purchased on local bookstore, it would be enough if you are able to drain every single content, or knowledge, in the book. This point does not match the main idea of the article at all.

Secondly, the argument the author makes about strictly scheduled life of religion is hard to understand. The author suggested that strictly scheduled life helps the religious books be deeply understood. However, this may not be applied in the modern society. In modern society, all religious work could be considered as inefficient. Attending regular religion meeting is not the only way of gaining deep knowledge of books. There are much more efficient ways to understand a book deeply in modern age.

The third strange point the author makes is about religious books. The author claims that there is “the great stable truths” in religious books. This is an irrefutable point to the people who believes religion, but I don’t think every single people will agree on this thesis. As the statistic shows, about 47% people in South Korea do not believe in any kind of religion. The author should have mentioned why the religious books contain “the great stable truths”, instead of just inserting the point in to the article as if this is the truth, not considering the people not having religion.

As mentioned before, the main idea of this article is excellent. In order to live well in society, one should be able to collect deep knowledge from books. However, the author inserts some odd points to prove this main idea. These points make the article confusing and hard to understand. The best way to solve this problem will be to either delete or modify the points that do not make sense.