Dear Colleagues: Thank you for many interesting contributions in the first day of the discussion. I will try to answer in one entry to three postings from Stan, Loet, and Steven.
1. Specialization in Education (Answer to Stan) There was a period of overwhelming tendency to increase specialization of education. However, the ideals of Liberal Arts Education are coming back. I can give you example of Japan, but I know that it's a global phenomenon. When we opened our university seven years ago it was just a beginning of the return. Our university has its Japanese name International Liberal Arts University (kokusai kyoyou daigaku - but kyoyou is based on Japanese tradition of personality cultivation, not European university tradition) and was designed to develop intellectual autonomy and the ability to learn rather than to specialize in any particular subject. This was the "selling point" which in short time gave us one of top ten (or top five) ratings among more than 300 universities in Japan. Now, all leading universities in Japan declare this style of educational philosophy. Many American universities have been faithful to the ideal of what is called there Liberal Education which was interpreted in various ways, but was always opposed to excessive specialization. In all variety of educational philosophies of Liberal Arts, there is a recognition of the need for the integration of curricula and for the crossing disciplinary borders. This creates a niche for Information Science to develop as a domain integrating different parts of the curriculum. 2. Reinventing of a Wheel (Answer to Loet) I agree with Gordana, that there are ways to find place for what FIS is about in curriculum. Here is a related, but little bit different issue. There are already some routines in using terms related to information. "Information Theory" is typically understood as mathematical theory initiated by Shannon, which as already observed by Carnap and Bar-Hillel in 1952 does not say much about information, but about its transmission. "Information Science" as Loet pointed out in the States is associated quite commonly with Library Science, but actually is more about knowledge management (it's my opinion). For quite long time American journals related to library associations were the only places where you could publish non- mathematical articles about general concept of information. No wonder that Library Science in 1990's inherited title for representing all studies of information. In Japan, Information Science is considered a different name for Computer Science. There is no category in Japanese Ministry of Education system where you can apply for grant to do research in Information Science. You have to use category basically meaning computer science. Now, we can think about using different name for the discipline (Information Studies), or we can try to promote the view that Information Science is broader than it is usually recognized. A generic course in Information Science for all students (within General Education, or in Liberal Arts curriculum) could serve this role to propagate the view that study of information includes many different perspectives on the information phenomena, and that it requires a broad, uniting philosophical reflection on information. 3. Do we know what we are talking about? (Answer to Steven) Sometimes I doubt it, when I read FIS discussions. Of course, I am joking. The unity to all disciplines are given by their philosophy and their methods, not by the definitions of the concepts involved. I am a mathematician and theoretical physicist. I do not know two physicists who would share exactly the same definitions of all concepts. Even more, I do not know two physicists who would agree what exactly physics is. I do not see any problem in discussing ten different concepts of information, as long as there is a common conceptual framework prepared by philosophy of information and a common methodology for the inquiry. For instance, I have my own definition of information about which I published several papers. Of course, I believe that it is superior over other definitions. But, it does not mean that I would not want to discuss yours. For instance, I think that the concept of information should apply to phenomena in the domain of quantum mechanics. Over there the use of the concept of causality is questionable. I would be very interested in your view of this matter. In my opinion the main task for Information Science is not to study one particular pre-defined concept, but to search for what is common for many phenomena which form contexts for the use of the term information or which have similar manifestations to the phenomena which in the past were associated with information. Then we can try to check whether either of existing concepts of information (as defined by you, me, others) can be used to formulate unifying theory of these phenomena. If not, a new concept of information will have to be formulated. But don't worry, I am sure my concept will be just fine ;-) I am sorry for this probably too long answers. I would love to be able to put my answers in three sentences, but I am not able to do it. Regards, Marcin _______________________________________________ fis mailing list [email protected] https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
