[Fis] Fw: Definition of Knowledge? (FIS Digest, Vol 530, Issue 1)
-- Mensaje reenviado -- De: Rafael Capurro raf...@capurro.de Fecha: 6 de octubre de 2009 02:28 Asunto: Re: [Fis] Definition of Knowledge? (FIS Digest, Vol 530, Issue 1) Para: José María Díaz Nafría jnaf...@uax.es dear jose maria and fis colleagues, greetings from japan I very much agree with pedro's suggestions about naturalizing the concept of knowledge i.e. of not reducing it to the propositional traditional (platonic and partly arisotelian) concept (as suggested also by floridi building a hierarchy where the top is propositional scientific knowledge). the concept of implicit knowldge or fore-knowledge in hermeneutic terms is a key issue that links in some way the 'typical' human propositional knowledge with knowledged in non-human agents. we should diversify our concepts and avoid hierarchical and dogmatic human-centered views also through a classic connection of data becoming information becoming knowledge, where 'becoming' is some kind of black box that explains nothing. kind regards rafael Zitat von José María Díaz Nafría jnaf...@uax.es: Dear FIS colleagues: I apologize for being so quiet, considering the interesting topics arisen with the occasion of our proposal to the COST open call of past March, which we thank once again. This proposal as revisited by FIS came to coincide in time with a call for themes proposal by the European Science Foundation (Eurocores Theme Proposal), which we also presented with a short timing. We may not succeed in the first attempt, but anyhow it aims at opening a new scientific topic in the ESF. If the proposed theme were selected, new projects in the delimited field (well fitted to FIS interests) from any European state could be presented to joint the research network. I say that, to justify our silence in the FIS arena, while we were actually working on it, although in the background. Afterwards, it was too late to answer, when already other issues were under discussion… To keep on the argument thread of our COST essays: we were not among the few selected proposals, but were given reasons to hope and reworked the proposal and applied again one week ago. About the theme proposal for Eurocores, we do not have any evaluation yet. Even if I am not answering straight forward Pedro’s words, I feel that we should let FISers know our efforts in finding new cooperative research scenarios within the realm of FIS interests. Now taking back Pedro’s proposal of discussion about knowledge: on the one hand, I cordially thank Pedro’s initiative of bringing to this outstanding stage a part of our elucidation; on the other hand, before saying something about the topic, I feel the need to set the context were the strive for this definition take place, which also implies giving a general idea about BITrum project (see http://www.unileon.es/congresos/bitrum/T_Bitrum_presentation.htm), where we pursue an interdisciplinary approach to the information concept from a maximally open perspective, aiming at the mutual understanding of all the concerned points of view. As you may see in the given link, one of the main means to get such a mutual understanding is a glossary of concepts, metaphors, theories and problems concerning information. At the first stage, it should help in the definition of working teams, while in following stages it may become an arena of discussion about particular issues, a reference of specific themes and crystallization of both research (within working teams) and consensus. Hence, the elucidation itself will be somehow reflected in this glossary, which edition has already started and its first public version -although very incomplete- will see the light at the end of this year. Although BITrum members are committed to feed the glossary, any interested author is wellcomed to contribute. The managing schema of the glossary includes: 1) a coordination board for glossary edition; 2) an editor per article, who takes over the integration of every contribution to such voice in a non redundant and rather systematic article; 3) any other may contribute, as author or coauthor, with entries, which will be afterwards integrated by the editor in an article. As an example, Pedro is editor of the voices: “Action-perception cycle”; “Cognit”; “Foundations of Information Science”; “Knowledge recombination”. Other FISers, like Rafael Capurro, Wolfgang Hofkirchner or Peter Fleissner also contribute as editors of other voices. After having given a general picture of the glossary and the projects where it is a main axis, I feel free to go to the settled discussion about knowledge, in which I contributed with the following entry to the voice (I do not bring the other two entries to this voice, since they are still in Spanish): * * * KNOWLEDGE * * * NOTE: “[voice]” denotes that such voice is developed among glossary voices. From the most viewpoints regarding information and knowledge, the
Re: [Fis] Fw: Definition of Knowledge? (FIS Digest, Vol 530, Issue 1)
Necessary and sufficient distinctions: Knowledge is that which determines subsequent action. Information in that which identifies cause and adds to knowledge. With respect, Steven -- Institute for Advanced Science Engineering http://IASE.info http://senses.info On Oct 6, 2009, at 6:32 AM, José María Díaz Nafría jnaf...@uax.es wrote: -- Mensaje reenviado -- De: Rafael Capurro raf...@capurro.de Fecha: 6 de octubre de 2009 02:28 Asunto: Re: [Fis] Definition of Knowledge? (FIS Digest, Vol 530, Issue 1) Para: José María Díaz Nafría jnaf...@uax.es dear jose maria and fis colleagues, greetings from japan I very much agree with pedro's suggestions about naturalizing the concept of knowledge i.e. of not reducing it to the propositional traditional (platonic and partly arisotelian) concept (as suggested also by floridi building a hierarchy where the top is propositional scientific knowledge). the concept of implicit knowldge or fore-knowledge in hermeneutic terms is a key issue that links in some way the 'typical' human propositional knowledge with knowledged in non-human agents. we should diversify our concepts and avoid hierarchical and dogmatic human-centered views also through a classic connection of data becoming information becoming knowledge, where 'becoming' is some kind of black box that explains nothing. kind regards rafael Zitat von José María Díaz Nafría jnaf...@uax.es: Dear FIS colleagues: I apologize for being so quiet, considering the interesting topics arisen with the occasion of our proposal to the COST open call of past March, which we thank once again. This proposal as revisited by FIS came to coincide in time with a call for themes proposal by the European Science Foundation (Eurocores Theme Proposal), which we also presented with a short timing. We may not succeed in the first attempt, but anyhow it aims at opening a new scientific topic in the ESF. If the proposed theme were selected, new projects in the delimited field (well fitted to FIS interests) from any European state could be presented to joint the research network. I say that, to justify our silence in the FIS arena, while we were actually working on it, although in the background. Afterwards, it was too late to answer, when already other issues were under discussion… To keep on the argument thread of our COST essays: we were not among the few selected proposals, but were given reasons to hope and reworked the proposal and applied again one week ago. About the theme proposal for Eurocores, we do not have any evaluation yet. Even if I am not answering straight forward Pedro’s words, I feel that we should let FISers know our efforts in finding new cooperative research scenarios within the realm of FIS interests. Now taking back Pedro’s proposal of discussion about knowledge: on the one hand, I cordially thank Pedro’s initiative of bringing to this outstanding stage a part of our elucidation; on the other hand, before saying something about the topic, I feel the need to set the context were the strive for this definition take place, which also implies giving a general idea about BITrum project (see http://www.unileon.es/congresos/bitrum/T_Bitrum_presentation.htm), where we pursue an interdisciplinary approach to the information concept from a maximally open perspective, aiming at the mutual understanding of all the concerned points of view. As you may see in the given link, one of the main means to get such a mutual understanding is a glossary of concepts, metaphors, theories and problems concerning information. At the first stage, it should help in the definition of working teams, while in following stages it may become an arena of discussion about particular issues, a reference of specific themes and crystallization of both research (within working teams) and consensus. Hence, the elucidation itself will be somehow reflected in this glossary, which edition has already started and its first public version -although very incomplete- will see the light at the end of this year. Although BITrum members are committed to feed the glossary, any interested author is wellcomed to contribute. The managing schema of the glossary includes: 1) a coordination board for glossary edition; 2) an editor per article, who takes over the integration of every contribution to such voice in a non redundant and rather systematic article; 3) any other may contribute, as author or coauthor, with entries, which will be afterwards integrated by the editor in an article. As an example, Pedro is editor of the voices: “Action-perception cycle”; “Cognit”; “Foundations of Information Science”; “Knowledge recombination”. Other FISers, like Rafael Capurro, Wolfgang Hofkirchner or Peter Fleissner also contribute as editors of other voices. After having given a general picture of the glossary and the projects where it is a main axis, I
