Re: [Fis] about fis discussions (2)

[mjs]

Dear Colleagues: 
I think Pedro's initiative to redirect the discussion is 
excellent. With time, I started to get impression that 
because Information Science is so young, our discussions 
started to remind a puppy which from time to time is 
noticing its tail and comes back to the eternal chase. 
The tail is of course the meaning of information. I do not 
say that it is not an important question to ask. My last 
seven years was devoted to this question, and I have 
developed my own answer to it, which due to unfortunate 
circumstances I did not have opportunity to present in Paris 
two years ago, but which has been presented in the 
proceedings. Well, to be honest I do believe that my answer 
is better than those of others, but I am not so naive to 
expect that everyone has to share my conviction. 
Yes, I am little bit annoyed by repeated reference to the 
definitions which in my opinion have at least formal flaws 
(reduction of uncertainty,) or which are catchy phrases 
used or abused by those who read the glossary to Bateson's 
book, but did not bother to read the text (Bateson had much 
more to say than information is a difference that makes a 
difference, whether someone agrees with him or not; I 
don't.) But, while many of us labor on the meaning of 
information, it would be a very big mistake to focus 
attention only on the definition of information. 
Let's look at the example of the concept of culture, another 
fundamental concept which belongs to the core of 
anthropology and several other disciplines. Starting from 
Taylor in the nineteenth century there was a continuing 
discussion of its meaning. In the middle of the twentieth 
century Kroeber and Kluckhohn made a review and summary of 
more than 160 different definitions of culture, and then 
gave their own. After them the discussion continued (at some 
point I have made my own contribution) and the last major 
effort in this direction known to me consisted of a special 
issue of Current Anthropology from 1999 Culture - Second 
Chance? But Anthropology would have never developed into 
the mature discipline if anthropologists would focus 
exclusively on the meaning of the concept of culture. The 
discipline has to live its own life with occassional 
injection of new thoughts about the meaning of its basic 
concepts, and it is natural that there are different ways 
people conceptualize their disciplines. 
Thus, I believe we should consider the question as 
important, as a source of inspiration, but we have to do 
more about establishing the discipline of Information 
Science. It is definitely a non-trivial task, more difficult 
than in other domains. The problem starts from the name. 
There are at least two (other) disciplines to which the name 
Information Science applies. Here in Japan (but also in 
other parts of the world), Information Science is most 
commonly understood as another name for Computer Science. In 
Japan, even Information Theory is not considered part of 
Information Science, at least for the officials in the 
Ministry of Education. It is Computer Science, that's it. 
Information Science is also frequently understood as a new 
name for Library Science (try Google for Information 
Science; first five million entries are about Library 
Science.) 
So, if we want to build a discipline which would go way 
above these (valuable and important as they are) disciplines 
of inquiry in its generality, we have to propagate knowledge 
about information across the multitude of disciplines where 
it manifests. And the best way to propagate this broad 
meaning of Information Science is to establish its place in 
the undergraduate curriculum, especially of Liberal Arts 
type. I have presented this idea before, for instance in a 
paper archived on the d-list (dlist.sir.arizona.edu/712/) or 
at the panel discussion in Paris (at the time of this 
discussion I had very high fever about 40 degree Celsius, so 
I really do not remember much what I have said there, but I 
believe it was about education.)
Thus, I will not elaborate on the issue why Information 
Science is a great chance for curriculum development. But I 
would like to reiterate, that the best way to develop and 
promote Information Science as it is understood by FIS-ers, 
is to work on developing teaching materials and syllabi for 
courses teaching it. 
Finally, my postulate is: Why don't we discuss the issue how 
can we present to a student, university administrator, or 
just a passanger sitting next to you on the plane what is 
Information Science. Next, why don't we join our efforts to 
develop several alternative syllabi for the course: 
Information Science 200? 
With kind regards,
Marcin

Marcin J. Schroeder, Ph.D.
Professor and Dean of Academic Affairs
Akita International University
Akita, Japan
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 

___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis

Re: [Fis] about fis discussions (2)

[Pedro Marijuan]

Dear FIS colleagues,

Thanks a lot for the responses. It is nice that we will have a good theme 
to deal with during these months of lull (the planned sessions will start 
around beginings of September)...  Ted has made a very valiant presentation 
on fundamental aspects of our strategy. Time will tell how can we cope with 
the changes and the new possibilities (Marcin's was quite right: we should 
open the teaching front too--a very good suggestion for the planned 
Institute). Koichiro has referred in an elegant Taoist way to the need of 
considering both our glue and our solvent, like in the molecular 
workings of life itself, otherwise we would not play good adaptation games. 
And John's reference to the theoretical compilation of Scott Muller could 
suggest a future discussion session on theoretical approaches to 
information, where several parties may finally produce more formally 
elaborated visions: or could it be better in a small “real” meeting?


Continuing with Ted's, perhaps we are far from a critical mass in several 
areas of importance (e.g., quantum, biomolecular, neuronal, social sci.) 
and although we are getting closer and closer to a theoretical breakthrough 
of importance (with very exciting repercussions in a variety of fields) 
that has not happened yet, at least in my opinion. So, patience, and let us 
continue with the regular toil. In particular, ideas for growth in those 
weak areas are needed. Usually, discussion sessions themselves have been a 
way to attract very interesting parties and even small groups (the case of 
Entropy).


The problem-based approach Ted suggests may be very promising. Problems 
well posed are real treasures in science. But arriving to a collection of 
such well-posed problems and questions may be even more difficult that 
solving them. Anyhow, my own sketch of strategic areas potentially full of 
those treasures could include:


Quantum Information (the bit versus the it)

Molecular Recognition (molecular info  complexity)


Biomolecular Embodiment of Meaning (informational cell-core theory)



The Theory of Mind (sensorimotor cognits, logics)

The Integrative Problem (informational dynamics of sci. disciplines)

And a separate chapter should be open for Information in the Social Realm, 
as perhaps it is the biggest world in itself (social organization, social 
complexity, informational economics, ecological economics, information in 
enterprises and institutions, sustainable development, science and society, 
social education, social use of knowledge, informational role of arts, and 
of values, ethics, morals and religions, not to speak of world order…).


Perhaps we have not achieved a clear demarcation from “mechanics” yet, 
theoretically speaking. And that may be another serious problem in itself. 
In what is different the “informational” from the “mechanical”? Or in my 
own terms: “Distinction from the Adjacent” versus  “Force from the 
Adjacent” ?… The big one, the breakthrough really propelling our whole 
field, may come from any of the above problem-areas or from some obscure 
lateral-theoretical question we are pertinaciously ignoring.


Best regards

Pedro  ___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
http://webmail.unizar.es/mailman/listinfo/fis