Re: [Fis] Verification of the Principle of Information Science and the Definition of Information ON THE EXAMPLE OF GARDEN PEAS
Dear Professor, your rightful indignation will be even deeper when you consider that the official important and valuable discussion among the most prominent and recognised eminent functionaries of highly respected institutions has been repeatedly disturbed by boring patterns of observations related to garden peas. Am 19.10.2017 09:52 schrieb "Xueshan Yan": Dear FIS Colleagues, Since April 2017, the FIS forum has been silent for as long as 5 months. September 15, Pedro has raised 10 Principles of Information Science with his amazing insight. As we all know, since the December 1997, FIS forum has run nearly 20 years, colleagues gathered here mainly focused on two topics:1) The analysis of different information problems that they apply the concept of information; 2) Definition of information; But this time, Pedro opened a third FIS topic: Principle of Information Science. Undoubtedly, it is the highest goal of FIS colleagues and all information scientists in the world. However, after the presentation of the 10 principles, the discussion has not been developed in accordance with the expectations of all FIS colleagues, including Pedro. After about 6 or so direct reviews about the 10 principles, the discussions quickly shifted to the topic of eternal controversial on FIS: The definition of information. And then the discussion start moving to Data, Meaning, Message, Reflection, Agent and so on, it is a stunned. Are the 10 principles wrong? Why has the definition of information been put on the table again? Looking back, at least one year ago, at the FIS forum, Bateson's "Information is a difference that makes a difference" still occupies the stage of information definition with an overwhelming majority of leading roles. The 10 principles put forward by Pedro are undoubtedly meaningful, but why do it secretly change the topic into information definition again?. *1. Pedro's 10 Principles of Information Science* Referring to Pedro's view (Sept. 20), we can divide the 10 principle into the following 3 groups: 1~3: The Universal Principle which is suitable for all types of information; 4~5: The Local Principle which is only suitable for the type of organic information; 6~10: The Local Principle which is only suitable for the type of human information. From a macro point of view, these 10 principles are related to Pedro's personal professional research — Biological Information — of his lifelong field of study, and information flow and knowledge recombination is his favorite topic in recent years. As for human information, this is a subject that I am most interested in and I am glad that he can put forward 4 principles from his view. The first principle is the exact expression of Wiener's 1948 statement (Wiener, 1948), and it is now well known among scientists all over the world. The other 9 principles come from Pedro himself. Unfortunately, in the discussions during these period, in addition to about 6 colleagues commented on these principles directly, almost no else commented. Obviously, there must be some problems. My view is that the problem lies mainly in the universal nature of the principle. It consists of two aspects: 1) Scope. Since it is called principle of information science, all principles under it should generally be applied to all information types and disciplines rather than to some kind of them. If they are expressed as "X principles of Biological Informatics", or "X principles of Human Informatics", they may be more precise; 2) Correctness. Verification for each principle requires time, this can be observed in the future discussion, we don't have to worry. I believe that these principles will eventually inspire the vitality they deserve. *2. Definition of Information* Looking back over the past 20 years of FIS discussion, almost every other time, someone must put forward the definition debate on information, and then produced new definition. Whether your topic is to talk about any other type of information, at the end, someone may intentionally or unintentionally turn the topic to the definition of information. It reminds me of some of my own research experiences. When I proposed that we should pay attention to information science research in 1987 to a vice-president of Peking University (A famous Linguist), he immediately questioned me: "Is information science not the study of information definition?" Till November 2015, at the presidential meeting of Peking University, when I gave the account on the establishment of China Chapter of IS4SI, the current president just only asked me one question: what is your definition of information now? Decades later, we can see that this problem has not changed, and this is what we have to introspect. FIS forum, including information scientists from other places, should not always discussed in such a simple and unrestricted way to define the definition of information. I recall Marcin said at our FIS 10 years ago: When somebody gives me
[Fis] Verification of the Principle of Information Science and the Definition of Information
Dear FIS Colleagues, Since April 2017, the FIS forum has been silent for as long as 5 months. September 15, Pedro has raised 10 Principles of Information Science with his amazing insight. As we all know, since the December 1997, FIS forum has run nearly 20 years, colleagues gathered here mainly focused on two topics:1) The analysis of different information problems that they apply the concept of information; 2) Definition of information; But this time, Pedro opened a third FIS topic: Principle of Information Science. Undoubtedly, it is the highest goal of FIS colleagues and all information scientists in the world. However, after the presentation of the 10 principles, the discussion has not been developed in accordance with the expectations of all FIS colleagues, including Pedro. After about 6 or so direct reviews about the 10 principles, the discussions quickly shifted to the topic of eternal controversial on FIS: The definition of information. And then the discussion start moving to Data, Meaning, Message, Reflection, Agent and so on, it is a stunned. Are the 10 principles wrong? Why has the definition of information been put on the table again? Looking back, at least one year ago, at the FIS forum, Bateson's "Information is a difference that makes a difference" still occupies the stage of information definition with an overwhelming majority of leading roles. The 10 principles put forward by Pedro are undoubtedly meaningful, but why do it secretly change the topic into information definition again?. 1. Pedro's 10 Principles of Information Science Referring to Pedro's view (Sept. 20), we can divide the 10 principle into the following 3 groups: 1~3: The Universal Principle which is suitable for all types of information; 4~5: The Local Principle which is only suitable for the type of organic information; 6~10: The Local Principle which is only suitable for the type of human information. From a macro point of view, these 10 principles are related to Pedro's personal professional research — Biological Information — of his lifelong field of study, and information flow and knowledge recombination is his favorite topic in recent years. As for human information, this is a subject that I am most interested in and I am glad that he can put forward 4 principles from his view. The first principle is the exact expression of Wiener's 1948 statement (Wiener, 1948), and it is now well known among scientists all over the world. The other 9 principles come from Pedro himself. Unfortunately, in the discussions during these period, in addition to about 6 colleagues commented on these principles directly, almost no else commented. Obviously, there must be some problems. My view is that the problem lies mainly in the universal nature of the principle. It consists of two aspects: 1) Scope. Since it is called principle of information science, all principles under it should generally be applied to all information types and disciplines rather than to some kind of them. If they are expressed as "X principles of Biological Informatics", or "X principles of Human Informatics", they may be more precise; 2) Correctness. Verification for each principle requires time, this can be observed in the future discussion, we don't have to worry. I believe that these principles will eventually inspire the vitality they deserve. 2. Definition of Information Looking back over the past 20 years of FIS discussion, almost every other time, someone must put forward the definition debate on information, and then produced new definition. Whether your topic is to talk about any other type of information, at the end, someone may intentionally or unintentionally turn the topic to the definition of information. It reminds me of some of my own research experiences. When I proposed that we should pay attention to information science research in 1987 to a vice-president of Peking University (A famous Linguist), he immediately questioned me: "Is information science not the study of information definition?" Till November 2015, at the presidential meeting of Peking University, when I gave the account on the establishment of China Chapter of IS4SI, the current president just only asked me one question: what is your definition of information now? Decades later, we can see that this problem has not changed, and this is what we have to introspect. FIS forum, including information scientists from other places, should not always discussed in such a simple and unrestricted way to define the definition of information. I recall Marcin said at our FIS 10 years ago: When somebody gives me logically correct definition of some concept I cannot say "It is wrong" but only that "I am not interested in this concept or that", "I do not believe this definition can be applied to what we agreed is denotation of the concept." The general concept of information requires for its foundations an appropriate rich