all-encompassingly

dr. faulconer, a philosophy professor at BYU, addressed the question a few months back:

So why do we blog and why is it, for many, so addictive? Are we frustrated writers with no publisher but looking for an audience? People in need of attention? Is blogging a new kind of community, where some of us find kindred souls that, without the internet, we wouldn�t be able to associate with? (I can see myself described by each of those.)

he continues:

whatever our particular reasons for blogging, why are we so drawn to the sensational threads?…I can�t think of a thread on [certain topics] that brought news to those who didn�t know it or changed any minds, yet we continue to post them and people by the score continue to yell at each other on them. I admit that my perception of what happens on those threads is probably colored by the fact that I avoid them as much as I can. However, when I do read them I find myself almost immediately drawn into the fray, wanting to respond with my own snide remark or put-down, or to write my own post that “finally explains the only reasonable position that a person can take on issue X.”

I’m not arguing that we ought not to be blogging. I’m just trying to figure out what we are doing when we do. [link]

i think the comments below the professor’s remark do well to answer the question. besides what has been said, however, blogs (and, indeed, the hyperlink feature) greatly enhance the interrelationship of knowledge available on the internet. the ease with which information is obtained means that the best research/argument is more often discovered, cited, and publicized. my roommate and i started this blog while i was learning about the concept of the research programme, a lakatosian term, in a fascinating class taught by dr. carter, also a philosophy professor at BYU.

at the time, i could not help but notice that many bloggers were (and they still are–perhaps unconsciously) contributing to some research programme or other on many occasions. in citing each other, the best theories and hypotheses are consistently advanced, while those tested by argument and found wanting are (hopefully) abandoned. i will admit that the most ’sensational (i’d call them ‘delightful’) threads’ noted by faulconer may seem to do the least for any research programme, but then it’s okay to call them ‘recreational’, since we’ve been doing all that ‘research’ the rest of the time.

jacklewis.net is currently surveying bloggers as to exactly why they blog, and what their blogging habits are. i took the survey and i was disappointed by its lack of flexibility in several areas, but it should return some interesting results, nonetheless. if you blog, go check it out: [why blog? -- a survey]