Re: [Fis] THE FOURTH GREAT DOMAIN OF SCIENCE: INFORMATIONAL? - What is a discipline?

[Stanley N Salthe]

Bob-- As one who has strayed from the Darwinian discipline of evolutionary
biology (my erstwhile field), I can say that I have 'paid the price'. But I
have had a wonderful time exploring wherever my thinking has gone.  I think
the discipline has in a sense guided me anyway, as turning away from it was
part of my motivation.  That is the disciplines continue to exert their
effect in the reactions to them.

STAN

On Sat, May 23, 2015 at 9:24 AM, Bob Logan 
wrote:

> Dear Colleagues - I have been reading the posts in this thread and
> enjoying the conversation. I started playing with the notion of discipline
> and came up with these undisciplined playful thoughts which I believe
> provide an interesting or at least an alternative perspective on the notion
> of a discipline. A discipline is a tool, a way of organizing ideas that
> result from scientific inquiry or any other form of scholarly activity and
> even artistic activity. Now every tool provides both service and
> disservice.  All of the posts so far have dealt with the service of
> discipline. Here are some thoughts about the possible disservice of
> discipline. Please take the following with a grain of salt. I believe the
> notion of a  discipline is anti-thetical to scientific inquiry in the sense
> that  it confines ones thinking to the confines of a discipline. One should
> not be disciplined by a discipline but be free to go beyond the boundaries
> of that discipline. Note that the root of the word discipline is disciple.
> If one is to be free to explore new ideas and new phenomena one should not
> be a disciple of the scientists or thinkers that created a discipline. Now
> I am not saying that learning a discipline is a bad thing as it provides a
> solid training and an understanding of how a set of principles describes
> certain phenomena. It is a model of how a scientific, scholarly or artistic
> practice can be carried out. As long as one does not become a disciple of
> one's discipline or disciplines they can be very useful for creating a new
> discipline or going beyond ones discipline. Perhaps the notion of
> trans-disciplinary is not such a bad notion if one thinks of trans as
> beyond.
>
> As to the notion that there are these four super categories of disciplines
> or great domains of science: Physics, biology, social and the 4th domain
> which is computing or infomation depending on how one likes to classify
> thing here are some thoughts. I find these classification schemes and their
> inter-relations fascinating and useful. But I believe another challenge
> worthy of consideration is to consider the interaction of the great domains
> of science with the great domains of the humanities, ethics, the arts. How
> does we connect the knowledge of the sciences with the wisdom of how to
> best use that knowledge to benefit humankind. Here are some thoughts I
> developed before this thread began that might be pertinent to our current
> discussion. Science can be thought of as organized knowledge given that the
> etymologically the word science derives from the Latin to know:
> en.wiktionary.org/wiki/*science*
> ‎
> [edit]. From Old French *science*, from Latin scientia (“knowledge”),
> from sciens, the present participle stem of scire (“know”).
>
> *Data, Information, Knowledge, Wisdom: *The relationship of data,
> information, knowledge and wisdom
>
> “Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
>
> Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?” ­– TS Eliot
>
> “Where is the meaning we have lost in information?” ­– RK Logan
>
> “• Data are the pure and simple facts without any particular structure or
> organization, the
>
>   basic atoms of information,
>
> • Information is structured data, which adds meaning to the data and gives
> it context and
>
>   significance,
>
> • Knowledge is the ability to use information strategically to achieve
> one's objectives, and
>
> • Wisdom is the capacity to choose objectives consistent with one's values
> and within a larger social context (Logan 2014).”
> While checking out the etymology of science I encountered the following on
> http://www.luminousgroup.net/2013/05/on-etymology-of-science.html
>
> "“This might be a good time to examine the etymology of the word *science*,
> It comes from the Latin *scientia*, from *sciens*, which means *having
> knowledge*, from the present participle of *scire*, meaning *to know*,
> probably—and here's where it gets exciting—akin to the Sanskrit *Chyati*,
> meaning* he cuts off*, and Latin *scindere*, *to split, cleave*."
>
> Science operates by cutting off questions of value. And this is why I
> advocate consideration of the four great domains of science with the great
> domain of the humanities, the arts and ethics. The greatest challenges
> facing humanity is not just increasing our store of knowledge through
> science but also how we choose to deploy our scientific knowledge in the
> best interest of human kind.
>
> So ends my challenge to Moises Nisen

[Fis] THE FOURTH GREAT DOMAIN OF SCIENCE: INFORMATIONAL? - What is a discipline?

[Bob Logan]

Dear Colleagues - I have been reading the posts in this thread and enjoying the 
conversation. I started playing with the notion of discipline and came up with 
these undisciplined playful thoughts which I believe provide an interesting or 
at least an alternative perspective on the notion of a discipline. A discipline 
is a tool, a way of organizing ideas that result from scientific inquiry or any 
other form of scholarly activity and even artistic activity. Now every tool 
provides both service and disservice.  All of the posts so far have dealt with 
the service of discipline. Here are some thoughts about the possible disservice 
of discipline. Please take the following with a grain of salt. I believe the 
notion of a  discipline is anti-thetical to scientific inquiry in the sense 
that  it confines ones thinking to the confines of a discipline. One should not 
be disciplined by a discipline but be free to go beyond the boundaries of that 
discipline. Note that the root of the word discipline is disciple. If one is to 
be free to explore new ideas and new phenomena one should not be a disciple of 
the scientists or thinkers that created a discipline. Now I am not saying that 
learning a discipline is a bad thing as it provides a solid training and an 
understanding of how a set of principles describes certain phenomena. It is a 
model of how a scientific, scholarly or artistic practice can be carried out. 
As long as one does not become a disciple of one's discipline or disciplines 
they can be very useful for creating a new discipline or going beyond ones 
discipline. Perhaps the notion of trans-disciplinary is not such a bad notion 
if one thinks of trans as beyond. 

As to the notion that there are these four super categories of disciplines or 
great domains of science: Physics, biology, social and the 4th domain which is 
computing or infomation depending on how one likes to classify thing here are 
some thoughts. I find these classification schemes and their inter-relations 
fascinating and useful. But I believe another challenge worthy of consideration 
is to consider the interaction of the great domains of science with the great 
domains of the humanities, ethics, the arts. How does we connect the knowledge 
of the sciences with the wisdom of how to best use that knowledge to benefit 
humankind. Here are some thoughts I developed before this thread began that 
might be pertinent to our current discussion. Science can be thought of as 
organized knowledge given that the etymologically the word science derives from 
the Latin to know: 
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/science‎
[edit]. From Old French science, from Latin scientia (“knowledge”), from 
sciens, the present participle stem of scire (“know”).

Data, Information, Knowledge, Wisdom: The relationship of data, information, 
knowledge and wisdom
“Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?

Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?” ­– TS Eliot

“Where is the meaning we have lost in information?” ­– RK Logan

“• Data are the pure and simple facts without any particular structure or 
organization, the

  basic atoms of information,

• Information is structured data, which adds meaning to the data and gives it 
context and

  significance,

• Knowledge is the ability to use information strategically to achieve one's 
objectives, and

• Wisdom is the capacity to choose objectives consistent with one's values and 
within a larger social context (Logan 2014).”

While checking out the etymology of science I encountered the following on 
http://www.luminousgroup.net/2013/05/on-etymology-of-science.html

"“This might be a good time to examine the etymology of the word science, It 
comes from the Latin scientia, from sciens, which means having knowledge, from 
the present participle of scire, meaning to know, probably—and here's where it 
gets exciting—akin to the Sanskrit Chyati, meaning he cuts off, and Latin 
scindere, to split, cleave."

Science operates by cutting off questions of value. And this is why I advocate 
consideration of the four great domains of science with the great domain of the 
humanities, the arts and ethics. The greatest challenges facing humanity is not 
just increasing our store of knowledge through science but also how we choose 
to deploy our scientific knowledge in the best interest of human kind. 

So ends my challenge to Moises Nisenbaum and Ken Herold with thanks for 
stimulating this interesting conversation

with kind regards -Bob
__

Robert K. Logan
Prof. Emeritus - Physics - U. of Toronto 
Chief Scientist - sLab at OCAD
http://utoronto.academia.edu/RobertKLogan
www.physics.utoronto.ca/Members/logan
www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Logan5/publications








___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis

[Fis] What are "information" and "science"?

[Marcus Abundis]

Dear Colleagues,

Re Pedro's point and other related postings . . .

> I would never bet for a new info-reductionism, or explanatory monism,
science is an elegant Babel construction always condemned --or enjoying--
the plurality of disciplinary languages and views.<

I echo the "questions" around communication and information at different
levels, and BETWEEN different systems/levels – this further takes me back
to a point I raised at the end of Deacon's last (second) session, but that
was not really addressed. This has to do with the nature of emergent things
BETWEEN systems (or levels of analysis). This proved (in his sessions) to
be a rather chronic issue in trying to grasp/convey Deacon's modeling – or
now, even in modeling an effective FIS(?). The Deacon session didn't really
seem to "land" anywhere (re Pedro's "condemned/enjoyed Babel") . . . and
here we are again, no?

So I am now left to wonder if "we" are to accept the futility of
modeling emergent things (which seems to be a critical deeper issue), that
might otherwise offer a "bridge" between systems/levels, or if that
imagined/impossible(?) "new info-reductionism, or explanatory monism" is to
be actively attempted and explored here? As a new member, I simply wish to
know what might be reasonably tolerated.

Thanks to all for your earlier thoughts!

[image: --]
Marcus Abundis
[image: http://]about.me/marcus.abundis

___
Fis mailing list
Fis@listas.unizar.es
http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis