Hi, Howard.
Answering your question "hb: i'm a newcomer to these discussions.  what is
the fourth great domain of science?" Might be useful also for who came in
the FIS list  after 2015 IS4IS Summit.
The last discussion before the conference, was "A Dialog on the
Informational as the 4th Great Domain of Science". A copy of the post is in
the end of this message.
Based on a Pedros's paper and Rosenbloom's book we propose that all
scientific disciplines could be a combination of 4 great scientific
domains. We are looking for a method to verify that the informational is
the 4th great domain. Maybe Loet's Maps of Science should be a good



Moisés André Nisenbaum
Doutorando IBICT/UFRJ. Professor. Msc.
Instituto Federal do Rio de Janeiro - IFRJ
Campus Maracanã

*A Dialog on the Informational as the 4th Great Domain of Science*
*Moisés André Nisenbaum & Ken Herold*

*PART 1:  **Informational as the 4th Great Domain of Science*
(Moisés André Nisenbaum)

To classify is human (BOWKER & STAR 2000). The organization of scientific
knowledge is concern of scientists long ago. It started as a matter of
librarianship and has evolved over time using various tools like
enumerative classification, faceted classification, universal
classification, controlled vocabulary, thesaurus, ontologies, Semantic Web.
But how Information Science should organize scientific knowledge taking
into account the dynamic behavior of disciplines and multi, inter and
trans-disciplinary science of the twenty-first century (Information

Rosenbloom (2012) proposed a model in which four great Scientific Domains -
Physical (P) Life (L), social (S) and Computing (C) - can becombined to
form any discipline
The first three (P, L and S) are "well known" domains and he proposes that
the 4th is Computing. The small number of domains (compared with 10 of DDC
and UDC) is offset by dynamic
domains that can be written by Metascience Expression Language
Although the prerequisites of a Great Scientific Domain has been well
developed, Rosenbloom does not explain why they are in number of four or
why these specific four domains.

NAVARRO, MORAL and Marijuan (2013) propose that the 4th Great Scientific
Domain is the Informational (I) instead of Computing. However, the biggest
proposal is that the Information Science needs to be rethought to support
theoretically and methodologically this 4th Great Scientific Domain. At the
end of the article, the authors propose the insertion of the four Great
Scientific Domains
<http://moisesandre.com.br/FIS/debate/images/Map-Pedro.jpg> in
High-Resolution Map of Sciences (Bollen at all, 2009)

The problem is that all this is still in its "philosophical field" and miss
a more pragmatic approach. When I observed this map, I just thought about
how to measure these four domains and, even without even knowing exactly
how to do this, I asked Bollen the raw data of his research. My initial
idea was to identify every scientific discipline by a mathematical entity,
for example a digital 4x4 matrix representing quantitatively the four Great
Scientific Domain components and their relationships. The problem how to
establish the criteria (bibliometric) that would define the matrix
elements. Once created, we can check if the matrices really come together
as expected.



BOWKER, Geoffrey C.; STAR, Susan Leigh. Sorting things out: Classification
and its consequences. MIT press, 2000.

ROSENBLOOM, Paul S. On computing: the fourth great scientific domain. MIT
Press, 2012.

NAVARRO, Jorge; MORAL, Raquel del; MARIJUÁN, Pedro C.. The uprising of
informational: towards a new way of thinking Information Science. Presented
at 1st International Conference in China on the Philosophy of Information,
Xi’an, China, 18 October 2013.

BOLLEN, Johan et al. Clickstream data yields high-resolution maps of
science. PLoS One, v. 4, n. 3, p. e4803, 2009.

*PART 2: Comments from Ken Herold*

I appear to be a fringe observer of the history of information science from
within my professional (since 1984) domain of librarianship and information
studies. [1] For a broader example, Chaim Zins conducted a multi-year study
of information science internationally from 2003-2005. [2]  My own edited
works [3] in 2004 and 2015 reprise various works going back to Machlup from
1962  [4].

I am somewhat skeptical of the suggestion that recombining knowledge is new
or previously critically not examined.  The international documentation
movement, predecessor to information science, has been shown by Buckland
and Rayward [5] among others to be exactly the rich response to the global
growth of knowledge 100 years ago.  Bioinformatics should and does clarify
and extend our perspectives, but I hesitate to accept its equivalence with
von Neumann architecture or cultural heritage.  Nevertheless, all the right
questions are being asked in my opinion.

Rosenbloom's interminable references to Wikipedia are off-putting, I am
afraid.  Also, he takes a rather narrow historical view of information
science in chapter 1.  Again, the trend seems correct to me as to the
importance of computing.  I just do not place as much value on an ad hoc
relational approach with few links to the massive peer-reviewed literature

I suppose I could best serve as the devil's advocate in this round?



[1] https://www.asist.org/?s=history+of+information+science

[2] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.20505/abstract

[3] https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/1034

[4] https://archive.org/details/productiondistri00mach

[5] http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~buckland/otlet.html

Moisés André Nisenbaum
Doutorando IBICT/UFRJ. Professor. Msc.
Instituto Federal do Rio de Janeiro - IFRJ
Campus Maracanã

> howlbl...@aol.com wrote:
>  In a message dated 6/17/2015 8:30:33 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
> pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es writes:
>  Dear Steven and FIS Colleagues,
> Your message has arrived to the list perfectly: fears are unjustified.
> There is no censorship in this list --and never will be any (well, as
> the movie tells "never say never again"!). Anyhow, I would dis-dramatize
> the discussion. The Vienna conference has been very exciting and full of
> oral discussions that somehow continue now. Quite many of those good
> ideas have been rediscussed in the exchanges of these days. However, for
> my taste, the essential connection between information and life has not
> properly surfaced yet.
>  hb.  have you seen Guenther Witzak's When Competing Viruses Unify or my
> book The God Problem: How a Godless Cosmos Creates?  both have clues to the
> relationship between information and life.  mere clues.  but a good start.
>   The explosion of complexity in the living and the
> explosion of complexity in modern societies is clearly depending on
> information and communication flows (or whatever we may denominate).
> Comparatively with the complexity of merely physical systems, there is
> no point about that.  Apart from following the physics, most of the
> alternative approaches so far discussed go for the discursive,
> conceptual domain as the place where information should be
> ascertained... What if information belongs to action,
>  hb: good question.  what is the relationship between information and
> action?  what is the relationship between stimulus  and response?  another
> topic in The God Problem.
>   to the adaptive
> changes arranged by the living  and socioeconomic agents, to the
> tentative advancement of their life cycles, to the difficult achievement
> of their fitness in an ever changing environment as communicating
> members of bigger entities and societies... then we are leaving that
> action track of life just as a fragmented scenario of multiple
> specialized points of view--or tying it unpropery. As Goethe put in
> Faust "At the beginning was the deed" Helas not the Verb!
> In Vienna I agreed with Marcin's pragmatic approach to the "liquidity"
> of information. Maybe it is too long to argue, and sure he can do better
> than me. But getting to terms with the factic undefinability of the term
> may help quite a bit to the practice of information science research by
> people  with empirical and naturalistic orientation.
>  hb: from The God Problem: "information is anything that a receiver can
> decode.  Information is anything a receiver can translate.  Information
> is anything that a reciever can understand.  Information is in the eyes
> of the beholder."  how do we know when information has hit home?
> stimulus and response.  action. the verb.
>  One should not feel
> forced to define a fundamental concept (on a pair with "time" and
> "space"--basic forms of information indeed)
>  hb: this is intriguing.  how  do you interpret time and space as
> information?  they do tell particles where to go.  and particles respond by
> moving. is that it?
>  plus a cohort of other
> "impossible" related terms (meaning, knowledge, intelligence)
>  hb: from the god problem re the meaning of meaning: "If meaning is
> anything that a receiver can understand, if meaning is anything that an
> entity can interpret, if meaning is in the eye of the beholder, then how do
> you know when a thing or a person “understands” something? Follow the B.F.
> Skinner rule.  Watch his or her behavior.  Watch for the signs of
> stimulus and response.  Watch to  see if the receiver does something in
> response to the stimulus.  Watch to see if the receiver moves.  Quarks
> exchange meaning with stimulus and response.  So do gas whisps competing
> to swallow each other.  And so do would-be planets using their gravity to
> snag and cannibalize comets and space debris.   How do we know the
> receivers get the meaning?  All of them respond to the signals they
> receive.  They move.  They move toward each other."
>  one more word.  from the work of Valerius Geist, author of Life
> Strategies.  all communication comes down to two elements: attraction cues
> and repulsion cues.
>   in order
> to practice good info science research. Acknowledging that, could be a
> first step to achieve a consensus on some basic principles of
> information science that would allow the disciplinary construction and
> all the multiple diversity within. It will take time and patience. So,
> our "market of conceptual exchange" should continue unabated.
> Particularly, continuing the debate on the 4 th Great Domain of Science
> can help us to have a big picture where our more immediate, particular
> goals might one day dovetail.
>   hb: i'm a newcomer to these discussions.  what is the fourth great
> domain of science?
>  with warmth and oomph--howard
Fis mailing list

Reply via email to