Hi, Pedro.
I think that your and Raquel's work on historic organization of FIS
discussion is very important to all FISers.
Thank you very much for this (hard) work, and if you need any help, you can
count on me :-)
Bibliometric studies on FIS list will be part of my PhD research and I hope
I can interview FIS members (as I did with Bob - it was an amazing
interview!) to add qualitative data to this measurements.
About collective intelligence, it reminds me Pierre Levy's book
Collective Intelligence: Mankind's Emerging World in Cyberspace (1997)
that explain what is his definition Collective Intelligence and
some developments. His article From social computing to reflexive
collective intelligence: The IEML research program (2010) in Information
Sciences journal proposes a Information Economy MetaLanguage to work
with Collective Intelligence concept. It is a very interesting subject, but
unfortunately I didn't have time to read much about.
About the crisis on creative thought and deep interdisciplinary
engagement, in my opinion is because science today (as many other things)
is always in a hurry. Researches are where the money is. And money wants
results as fast as possible. But there are good initiatives, like this list
and ArXiv for example, that is working against this system.
Best,
Moisés
References:
LÉVY, Pierre. Collective Intelligence: Mankind’s Emerging World in
Cyberspace. Cambrigde, Mass.: Perseus Books, 1997.
LÉVY, Pierre. From social computing to reflexive collective intelligence:
The IEML research program. Information Sciences, v. 180, n. 1, p. 71-94,
2010.
2015-07-10 8:30 GMT-03:00 Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es:
Dear Moises, Ken, and FIS colleagues,
First of all, thanks to you two for chairing the discussion session. Also,
for a different matter, to Raquel del Moral. She has been working with me
in the complete archive of fis messages and recapitulating the whole fis
discussion-sessions celebrated (starting by the the virtual conference
long ago, in 1998). It is a big novelty in the fis webpage. Please, have a
glance at: http://fis.sciforum.net/fis-discussion-sessions/
Hopefully it will allow quite many future bibliometric studies...
A closer relationship between classical information/library science and a
renewed information science as was attempted in the session is important.
Organizing the stock of accumulated knowledge in this epoch of
multidisciplinarity, of instant data access, of increasing research
complexity, of pervasive big data, of massive innovation, etc. should imply
new thinking styles and a new reflection on the individual mind versus the
aggregate system of collective intelligence. Unfortunately I do not see
much advancement in that matter --even the opposite. The talk about the
global brain is superficial at best. The attentional saturation of the
social environment during the last decade is strongly diminishing the
individual capabilities for really creative thought and deep
interdisciplinary engagement (for instance, less and less interesting new
books). The dangers inherent in the mechanization of knowledge, as was
warning a celebrated essay by Harold Innis (McLuhan's mentor), could become
real in our time.
So, if the above lamentations have a grain of truth, we have not much
succeeded in the ongoing discussion. If the new mission of library science,
hand to hand with the new information science, should also include the
qualitative thinking on the social and institutional conditions for
advancement of knowledge in its widest sense (humanist too), we have a lot
of pending work to do. I hope not to be sounding pessimistic! I was
motivated by some recent comment of an Indian researcher (Sunita Narain) on
waste management: the key obstacle is that everyday challenges are not top
priorities for research and innovation. Indian science has always been
fascinated by the 'masculine' agendas of space and genetics, not
reinventing the toilet. Instead, science must meet the needs of poor
people. We need to devise ways to prevent pollution rather than cleaning it
up afterwards. Indian research has to be more humble, nimble and
investigative... India's ambition should be to become front-runner in the
race to save the planet. (Nature 2015, vol. 521, pp:155)
Best--Pedro
Moisés André Nisenbaum wrote:
Dear FIS Colleagues,
First, I want to thank Pedro and everyone the opportunity to introduce,
participate and observe the development of debate “THE FOURTH GREAT DOMAIN
OF SCIENCE: INFORMATIONAL?”
I spent the last days documenting the posts related to this discussion.
On this basis, I will present some numbers and comments about these rich
discussions.
--
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Centro de Investigación Biomédica de Aragón (CIBA)
Avda. San Juan Bosco, 13, planta X