Re: [Fis] Krassimir's Notes . . .
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 approach. Cheers Moisés -- Moisés André Nisenbaum Doutorando IBICT/UFRJ. Professor. Msc. Instituto Federal do Rio de Janeiro - IFRJ Campus Maracanã moises.nisenb...@ifrj.edu.br *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 Society)? 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 http://moisesandre.com.br/FIS/debate/images/rosembloom-figure-2.1-domains-composing-disciplines.jpg. 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 http://moisesandre.com.br/FIS/debate/images/Rosenbloom-figure-2.9-relationships.jpg relationships http://moisesandre.com.br/FIS/debate/images/Rosenbloom-figure-2.2-domains-simple-relations.jpg between domains that can be written by Metascience Expression Language http://moisesandre.com.br/FIS/debate/images/Rosenbloom-table-2.1-ME-Language.jpg. 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) http://moisesandre.com.br/FIS/debate/images/Map-Bollen.jpg 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. Best, Moisés *References:* BOWKER, Geoffrey C.; STAR, Susan Leigh. Sorting things out: Classification and its consequences. MIT press, 2000. https://books.google.com.br/books?id=xHlP8WqzizYClpg=PR9ots=Mz3xtCt2nEdq=Sorting%20things%20out%3A%20Classification%20and%20its%20consequences.%20lrhl=pt-BRpg=PR9#v=onepageq=Sorting%20things%20out:%20Classification%20and%20its%20consequences.f=false ROSENBLOOM, Paul S. On computing: the fourth great scientific domain. MIT Press, 2012. https://books.google.com.br/books?id=WGfxkn8OkwAClpg=PP1dq=On%20computing%3A%20the%20fourth%20great%20scientific%20domain.%20google%20bookshl=pt-BRpg=PP1#v=onepageq=On%20computing:%20the%20fourth%20great%20scientific%20domain.%20google%20booksf=false 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. http://moisesandre.com.br/FIS/debate/articles/pedro-article.pdf 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
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. Best Guenther Am 20.06.2015 um 22:33 schrieb Jerry LR Chandler: List: 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 biology. 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. Cheers Jerry On Jun 19, 2015, at 7:52 PM, howlbl...@aol.com 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 Howardbloom.net 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, emanl@gmail.com 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