Re: [Fis] RV: THE FOURTH GREAT DOMAIN OF SCIENCE: INFORMATIONAL? (R.Capurro)
Dear colleagues, For the measurement of interdisciplinarity, one can use, for example, Rao-Stirling diversity which is defined as follows (Rao, 1982; Stirling, 2007): Δ = Σij pi pj dij (1) where dij is a disparity measure between two classes i and j-the categories are in the case below journals-and pi is the proportion of elements assigned to each class i. As the disparity measure, we use the distances on an aggregated journal-journal citation map (Leydesdorff, Heimeriks, Rotolo, in press; Leydesdorff, Rafols, Chen, 2013). For example, 23 publications can be retrieved as of today with the search string au=Marijuan P* at WoS. The journal map is as follows: cid:image001.gif@01D09216.E78CE210 and the Rao-Stirling diversity (interdisciplinarity) of this set is 01282. If I repeat the analysis with the search string au=leydesdorff l*, I retrieve 270 documents; Rao-Stirling diversity is 0.0805. cid:image002.gif@01D09216.E78CE210 In other words, Leydesdorff is more prolific than Marijuan in terms of WoS publications, but Marijuan's portfolio is more interdisciplinary than Leydesdorff's. One finds the relevant software at http://www.leydesdorff.net/portfolio/index.htm Reference: Leydesdorff, L., Heimeriks, G., Rotolo, D. (2015 (in press)). Journal Portfolio Analysis for Countries, Cities, and Organizations: Maps and Comparisons http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.05676 . Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. oledata.mso Description: Binary data ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] RV: THE FOURTH GREAT DOMAIN OF SCIENCE: INFORMATIONAL? (R.Capurro)
Cari Tutti, secondo l'esordio di questo nuovo tema di discussione e riflessione mi verrebbe di scrivere: E' l'economia bellezza!. Difatti la mia Nuova economia è una inter-mediatrice di tutte le scienze perché congiunge l'astrattezza filosofica e la concretezza empirica con un resiliente impegno metodologico di tipo popperiano in-centrato su problemi, ipotesi, teorie, critiche.. Ciò premesso nell'agosto 1997 ho elaborato il capitolo 11 K. R. Popper dal neo-positivismo al post-positivismo o 'razionalismo critico': la dimensione trina dell'esistenza e del sapere (economico) di Valore e valutazioni (FrancoAngeli Milano, 1999, pp. 219-242) che confronta tre modelli nel seguente modo: a) il mio processo di tras-informazione ha come input o immissioni, materia, energia e informazione e come output o emissioni ancora materia, energia e informazione, ma in uno stato diverso; in estrema sintesi questa è l'attività o teoria economica basata su un triangolo di tre surplus; b) Popper e John C. Eccles formulano (soprattutto il primo) ed esplicitano (soprattutto il secondo) il Mondo 1 (Oggetti e Stati fisici inorganici, biologici e fatti dall'uomo; Mondo 2 (Stati di Coscienza: Conoscenza soggettiva attraverso l'Esperienza di percezione, pensiero, emozioni, propositi, memorie, sogni immaginazione creativa); Mondo 3 (Conoscenza in Senso Oggettivo: Testimonianze di imprese intellettuali filosofiche, teologiche, scientifiche, storiche, letterarie, artistiche, tecnologiche; Sistemi teoretici: problemi scientifici, argomentazioni, critiche); c) G. Bugliarello, tecnologo di New York, nel 1991 ha introdotto il concetto-unità di Bio-So-Ma (comprendente le entità biologiche, sociali e tecnologiche) in relazione alla materia (società pre-industriale), all'energia (società industriale) e all'informazione (società post-industriale). In questo stesso capitolo 11 ho criticato ( e proposto emendamenti de) i tre Mondi di Popper così come sono stati esplicitati da Eccles. Tuttavia, con una larga approssimazione metodologica, questi tre modelli com-provano l'armonia meravigliosa che governa il mondo, quindi a mio parere, le stesse eventuali differenze o diversità non fanno altro che rafforzare una certa UNITA' di fondo tra tutti i problemi dell'esistenza e tutte le teoria della conoscenza. La mia Nuova economia, da circa 50 anni ri-comprende, ri-significa e re-interpreta la scienza economica tradizionale che ha ha fatto tante scelte pratiche e teoriche sbagliate da farsi perdonare: compresa la crisi economico-finanziaria, ecologica ed umana che ancora imperversa nel mondo globalizzato. Chiedo scusa se sono stato più lungo del solito. Un doppio grazie. Un saluto Francesco Rizzo 2015-05-19 9:34 GMT+02:00 Loet Leydesdorff l...@leydesdorff.net: Dear colleagues, For the measurement of interdisciplinarity, one can use, for example, Rao-Stirling diversity which is defined as follows (Rao, 1982; Stirling, 2007): Δ = Σij pi pj dij (1) where *dij *is a disparity measure between two classes *i *and *j*—the categories are in the case below journals—and *pi *is the proportion of elements assigned to each class *i*. As the disparity measure, we use the distances on an aggregated journal-journal citation map (Leydesdorff, Heimeriks, Rotolo, in press; Leydesdorff, Rafols, Chen, 2013). For example, 23 publications can be retrieved as of today with the search string “au=Marijuan P*” at WoS. The journal map is as follows: [image: cid:image001.gif@01D09216.E78CE210] and the Rao-Stirling diversity (“interdisciplinarity”) of this set is 01282. If I repeat the analysis with the search string “au=leydesdorff l*”, I retrieve 270 documents; Rao-Stirling diversity is 0.0805. [image: cid:image002.gif@01D09216.E78CE210] In other words, Leydesdorff is more prolific than Marijuan in terms of WoS publications, but Marijuan’s portfolio is more interdisciplinary than Leydesdorff’s. One finds the relevant software at http://www.leydesdorff.net/portfolio/index.htm Reference: Leydesdorff, L., Heimeriks, G., Rotolo, D. (2015 (in press)). Journal Portfolio Analysis for Countries, Cities, and Organizations: Maps and Comparisons http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.05676. *Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology*. ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] RV: THE FOURTH GREAT DOMAIN OF SCIENCE: INFORMATIONAL? (R.Capurro)
De: Rafael Capurro [raf...@capurro.de] Enviado el: martes, 19 de mayo de 2015 14:06 Para: PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ Asunto: Re: Fwd: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender ...then the problem is, how can a 'realist' detach theoretical problems from the real problems of the real world. Mario Bunge said once that Popper's 'world 3' is a platonic phantasy and Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker told me about Popper'ontology' it is bad ontology. To put it more crude: if after a catastrophic event all human beings (or beings capable of understanding what is put in 'world 3') disappear then 'world 3' is meaningless. Or: it makes no sense (to me) to advocate for the independence of each of the three 'worlds' and to speak of 'worlds' when talking about 'things' that cannot be be counted _as_ worlds. best Rafael -- Prof.em. Dr. Rafael Capurro Hochschule der Medien (HdM), Stuttgart, Germany Capurro Fiek Foundation for Information Ethics (http://www.capurro-fiek-foundation.org) Distinguished Researcher at the African Centre of Excellence for Information Ethics (ACEIE), Department of Information Science, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Chair, International Center for Information Ethics (ICIE) (http://icie.zkm.de) Editor in Chief, International Review of Information Ethics (IRIE) (http://www.i-r-i-e.net) Postal Address: Redtenbacherstr. 9, 76133 Karlsruhe, Germany E-Mail: raf...@capurro.de Voice: + 49 - 721 - 98 22 9 - 22 (Fax: -21) Homepage: www.capurro.de ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
Re: [Fis] RV: THE FOURTH GREAT DOMAIN OF SCIENCE: INFORMATIONAL? (R.Capurro)
Rafael, Joseph, list members, That is an interesting way of putting it, but I think the answer is yes. C.S. Peirce's pragmatacism is aimed at doing exactly that. Mathematical structures and other structural models have no implication of reality in the sense that reality is contingent, so we need a way to test applications. For Peirce, this is against our expectations of reality, which give meaning to the models in particular applications (pragmatic maxim). This goes some way to responding to Joseph, who says: When John C. talks about references crossing ecology, management and political science, what is of interest to me and perhaps others is the 'substance' so to speak of the crossing. To make things difficult (rather than easy for a change), let us assume that this substance includes, but is not limited to common assumptions and common attitudes. (My informational exchanges today are more interdisciplinary because I am paying more attention to the way in which information is processed in the different disciplines.) Peirce's maxim goes a long way towards getting at the substance (you don't need his categories to apply his pragmatic maxim), and should be sufficient, but I would agree that it would be easier if there are shared presuppositions, domain specific (or not so domain specific) paradigms in Kuhn's sense. Because we can't fully express our presuppositions (Polanyi, Quine, Wittgenstein, Barwise and Perry) our ideas can never be made fully clear without their losing anything but tautological sense. So common ground is not always easy to find, and it requires a fair degree of cooperation and willingness to compromise, especially on what seem to be certainties. Joseph also says: The task then becomes to express the 'substance' in informational terms. What informational terms are possible that are not numbers or ad hoc Peircean categories? The first thing I see is that the corresponding logic and category theory must be non-standard or it will miss the interactions and overlaps between disciplines. The next thing might be to change to a process perspective, looking at the way in which the disciplines, considered as informational entities, influence one another, and find some formal but non-mathematical language for referring to this. Are there any suggestions for such a language? I think that nonstandard here requires at least that noncomputability is allowed. I have written ab out this in my discussion of an informational view of causal connection (or transfer of causation - a version of Russell's 'at-at' approach) in Information, causation and computationhttp://web.ncf.ca/collier/papers/CollierJohn%20formatted.pdf (2012. Information and Computation:http://astore.amazon.co.uk/books-books-21/detail/9814295477 Essays on Scientific and Philosophical Understanding of Foundations of Information and Computation, Ed by Gordana Dodig Crnkovic and Mark Burgin, World Scientific). It probably requires more as well, depending on what we mean by 'nonstandard'. I think of nonstandard analysis as an example, but perhaps Joseph has more in mind, or something different. Cheers, John From: Rafael Capurro [mailto:raf...@capurro.de] Sent: May 19, 2015 3:15 AM To: John Collier; Joseph Brenner; PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ; fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] RV: THE FOURTH GREAT DOMAIN OF SCIENCE: INFORMATIONAL? (R.Capurro) then the problem is, how can a 'realist' detach theoretical problems from the real problems of the real world. Rafael An earlier version was blocked due to the large set of earlier messages. Usually I delete them if they are not relevant. I have done that this time. Cheers, John Dear fis list, List, Popper is famous for his Three Worlds model, in which ideas sit out there in their own world (the others are material and mental, roughly). The problems approach, I think, is directed at this world. However I think that systems theorists should agree at least that there are general problems that involve many different disciplines (Rosen calls them sometime metaphors, but he means mathematical or structural Formalisms that have wide generality). By solving some of these general problems we can facilitate the generation of solutions to more specific problems, both theoretical and practical. That is what systems theory is about. Popper considered himself a realist, but thought that the object of theory (problem solutions) was verisimilitude. Exactly what that means is still a matter of debate. I agree with Joseph about the usefulness of the bibliometric work. I found it interesting, working in ecology right now, that despite many ecologists accepting that there is a socio-ecological system that requires study to solve ecological problems, that there were few if any references crossing ecology and management and political science. That reflects my reading in the fields. John From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es
Re: [Fis] RV: THE FOURTH GREAT DOMAIN OF SCIENCE: INFORMATIONAL? (R.Capurro)
An earlier version was blocked due to the large set of earlier messages. Usually I delete them if they are not relevant. I have done that this time. Cheers, John Dear fis list, List, Popper is famous for his Three Worlds model, in which ideas sit out there in their own world (the others are material and mental, roughly). The problems approach, I think, is directed at this world. However I think that systems theorists should agree at least that there are general problems that involve many different disciplines (Rosen calls them sometime metaphors, but he means mathematical or structural Formalisms that have wide generality). By solving some of these general problems we can facilitate the generation of solutions to more specific problems, both theoretical and practical. That is what systems theory is about. Popper considered himself a realist, but thought that the object of theory (problem solutions) was verisimilitude. Exactly what that means is still a matter of debate. I agree with Joseph about the usefulness of the bibliometric work. I found it interesting, working in ecology right now, that despite many ecologists accepting that there is a socio-ecological system that requires study to solve ecological problems, that there were few if any references crossing ecology and management and political science. That reflects my reading in the fields. John From: Fis [mailto:fis-boun...@listas.unizar.es] On Behalf Of Joseph Brenner Sent: May 17, 2015 11:14 AM To: PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ; fis@listas.unizar.es Subject: Re: [Fis] RV: THE FOURTH GREAT DOMAIN OF SCIENCE: INFORMATIONAL? (R.Capurro) Dear All, I agree with Rafael that there is an anti-realist flavor to Popper's concept of problems. However, it indicates to me an intiution that there is something important going on between disciplines. This is a dynamic aspect which I feel is not captured by diagrams such as Loet's :-) in which the connections between disciplines are represented by sets of lines. I would not be so hard as Dino on bibliometrics as such, but I think that once classifications and maps have been established, it is important to talk about where to go next. Best wishes, Joseph - Original Message - From: PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZmailto:pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es To: fis@listas.unizar.esmailto:fis@listas.unizar.es Sent: Sunday, May 17, 2015 1:17 PM Subject: [Fis] RV: THE FOURTH GREAT DOMAIN OF SCIENCE: INFORMATIONAL? (R.Capurro) De: Rafael Capurro [raf...@capurro.de] Enviado el: sábado, 16 de mayo de 2015 9:34 Para: PEDRO CLEMENTE MARIJUAN FERNANDEZ Asunto: Re: [Fis] THE FOURTH GREAT DOMAIN OF SCIENCE: INFORMATIONAL? Karl Popper once suggested (Conjectures and Refutations, p. 67) that we should not think in terms or subject matter(s) or disciplines but in terms of problems. Problems do not arise within a fixed definition of a discipline (essentialism) but within a tradition where a theory is being discussed. In this sense, theories are in some sense disciplines or can be conceived as loose clusters of theories. But Popper speaks about a world of problems in themselves which is a kind of Platonism not only because it separates such problems in themselves from their connection to the world _as_ perceived (ie. interpreted) by humans, but also because it creates a knowledge hierarchy by giving theoretical knowledge a higher status than practical knowledge. Thirty years ago (sic) I wrote some thoughts on this issue. See: http://www.capurro.de/trita.htm Rafael ___ Fis mailing list Fis@listas.unizar.es http://listas.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
