Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Notes . . .

2015-06-21 Thread Moisés André Nisenbaum
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 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.

Re: [Fis] FIS newcomer

2015-06-21 Thread Günther Witzany
Meaning is a social function (G.H.Mead). The meaning can be simply identifying 
by looking what habits it produces (C.S.Peirce), the meaning of a word is its 
use (late Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations). There remains no 
question about meaning so far. This problem is finally solved.

Am 20.06.2015 um 22:33 schrieb Jerry LR Chandler:

 My opinions categorically reject the shallow proposition below which ignores 
 the foundational logic.
 The biological sciences focus on life itself.
 The scientific foundation of biological information is included under the 
 notion of Foundation of Information Science.
 The adjectives cognitive and computational and linguistic do not 
 influence the meaning the foundation of the science, they are merely 
 descriptors of sub-aspects of the science or incomplete perspectives of 
 The post introduces the proposition that these three adjectives are not even 
 modifiers of the meaning of biology, mere metaphors, each of which can carry 
 a vast array of meanings.  
 Personally, I am rather fond of elephants and find this slight of elephants, 
 one of mother nature's greatest achievements, unwarranted. 
 On Jun 19, 2015, at 7:52 PM, wrote:
 re: cognitive biology vs computational biology.
 may i suggest that you add yet one more approach to the list: linguistic 
 biology.  per the work of Guenther Witzany.  also reflected in my book The 
 God Problem: How a Godless Cosmos Creates.
 each approach uses a helpful metaphor.  no one approach sees the elephant in 
 its entirety. so please let us use all three.
 with oomph--howard
 Howard Bloom
 Author of: The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition Into the Forces of 
 History (mesmerizing-The Washington Post), 
 Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind From The Big Bang to the 21st 
 Century (reassuring and sobering-The New Yorker), 
 The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism (A tremendously 
 enjoyable book. James Fallows, National Correspondent, The Atlantic), 
 The God Problem: How A Godless Cosmos Creates(Bloom's argument will rock 
 your world. Barbara Ehrenreich), 
 How I Accidentally Started the Sixties (“Wow! Whew! Wild! Wonderful!” 
 Timothy Leary), and 
 The Mohammed Code (“A terrifying book…the best book I’ve read on Islam.” 
 David Swindle, PJ Media).
 Former Core Faculty Member, The Graduate Institute; Former Visiting 
 Scholar-Graduate Psychology Department, New York University
 Founder: International Paleopsychology Project. Founder: The Group Selection 
 Squad; Founder, Space Development Steering Committee. Board Member and 
 Member Of Board Of Governors, National Space Society. Founding Board Member: 
 Epic of Evolution Society. Founding Board Member, The Darwin Project. 
 Founder: The Big Bang Tango Media Lab. Member: New York Academy of Sciences, 
 American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Psychological 
 Society, Academy of Political Science, Human Behavior and Evolution Society, 
 International Society for Human Ethology. Scientific Advisory Board Member, 
 Lifeboat Foundation. Advisory Board Member, The Buffalo Film Festival. 
 Editorial board member, The Journal of Space Philosophy. 
 In a message dated 6/19/2015 9:22:14 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, writes:
 Dear Jerry,
 Thank you for responding to my post.
 Thank you very much for an attempt to read and to understand my Vienna 
 Symposium related publications.
 I apologize for a delay in my response – I was trying to read and to 
 understand your papers (“Algebraic Biology” and “Physical Foundations of 
 Organic Mathematics”). Unfortunately, I did not understand much of what you 
 are talking there (about biological computations).
 Never mind, it is my fault, not yours. To my shame, I often also do not 
 understand what other people on the forum are writing too.
 As to me, I think (and write) that the era of a computational approach to 
 science and nature studies is over and we are gradually replacing it with a 
 cognitive approach. (Computational biology, Computational ecology, 
 Computational neuroscience, Computational genomics, Computational chemistry, 
 Computational endocrinology, Computational intelligence, Computational 
 linguistics and so on are now being replaced with Cognitive biology, 
 Cognitive ecology, Cognitive neuroscience, Cognitive genomics, Cognitive 
 endocrinology, Cognitive intelligence, Cognitive linguistics, and even 
 Cognitive computing).
 By definition, computational approaches imply intensive data processing, 
 while Cognitive approaches imply dedicated information processing. What is 
 the difference? Unfortunately, FIS forum does not dwell on this issue.
 I was pleased to hear from Prof. Kun Wu (at his opening lecture in Vienna) 
 that “By means of the reformation, all