Re: [Fis] Fw: Definition of Knowledge? (FIS Digest, Vol 530, Issue 1)

[Steven Ericsson-Zenith]

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   
wrote:

> -- Mensaje reenviado --
> De: Rafael Capurro 
> 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 
>
>
> 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 :
>
>> 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
>> ),
>> 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
>> voice

[Fis] Fw: Definition of Knowledge? (FIS Digest, Vol 530, Issue 1)

[José María Díaz Nafría]

-- Mensaje reenviado --
De: Rafael Capurro 
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 


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 :

> 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
> ),
> 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 an