Thanks Stan. I agree: Behind production and  interpretation of all quantitative 
data, there is  either an biological or an existential or a religious or a 
philosophical framework of meaning.


From: Stanley N Salthe []
Sent: 26. februar 2018 16:19
To: Søren Brier <>; fis <>
Subject: Re: [Fis] A Paradox

Following upon Søren:  Meaning is derived for a system by way of 
Interpretation.  The transmitted information has no meaning without 


On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 6:26 AM, Søren Brier 
<<>> wrote:
Dear  Xueshan

The solution to the paradox is to go to a metaparadigm that can encompass 
information science as well as linguistics. C.S. Peirce’s semiotics is such a 
paradigm especially if you can integrate cybernetics and systems theory  with 
it. There is a summary of the framework of Cybersemiotics here:

Cordially yours

                 Søren Brier

Depart. of Management, Society and Comunication, CBS, Dalgas Have 15 (2VO25), 
2000 Frederiksberg
Mobil 28494162<> ,<>.

Fra: Fis 
[<>] På 
vegne af Xueshan Yan
Sendt: 26. februar 2018 10:47
Til: FIS Group <<>>
Emne: [Fis] A Paradox

Dear colleagues,
In my teaching career of Information Science, I was often puzzled by the 
following inference, I call it Paradox of Meaning and Information or Armenia 
Paradox. In order not to produce unnecessary ambiguity, I state it below and 
strictly limit our discussion within the human context.

Suppose an earthquake occurred in Armenia last night and all of the main media 
of the world have given the report about it. On the second day, two students A 
and B are putting forward a dialogue facing the newspaper headline “Earthquake 
Occurred in Armenia Last Night”:
Q: What is the MEANING contained in this sentence?
A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night.
Q: What is the INFORMATION contained in this sentence?
A: An earthquake occurred in Armenia last night.
Thus we come to the conclusion that MEANING is equal to INFORMATION, or 
strictly speaking, human meaning is equal to human information. In Linguistics, 
the study of human meaning is called Human Semantics; In Information Science, 
the study of human information is called Human Informatics.
Historically, Human Linguistics has two definitions: 1, It is the study of 
human language; 2, It, also called Anthropological Linguistics or Linguistic 
Anthropology, is the historical and cultural study of a human language. Without 
loss of generality, we only adopt the first definitions here, so we regard 
Human Linguistics and Linguistics as the same.
Due to Human Semantics is one of the disciplines of Linguistics and its main 
task is to deal with the human meaning, and Human Informatics is one of the 
disciplines of Information Science and its main task is to deal with the human 
information; Due to human meaning is equal to human information, thus we have 
the following corollary:
A: Human Informatics is a subfield of Human Linguistics.
According to the definition of general linguists, language is a vehicle for 
transmitting information, therefore, Linguistics is a branch of Human 
Informatics, so we have another corollary:
B: Human Linguistics is a subfield of Human Informatics.
Apparently, A and B are contradictory or logically unacceptable. It is a 
paradox in Information Science and Linguistics. In most cases, a settlement 
about the related paradox could lead to some important discoveries in a 
subject, but how should we understand this paradox?

Best wishes,

Fis mailing list<>

Fis mailing list

Reply via email to