 | |
|
Services: Knowledge Portals · Knowledge Map · Knowledge Network · Book of Knowledge · NEWS· INFORMATION
Channels: General Business · Business Technology · E-Business · Knowledge Management Community: Join the Network! · Global Network · Events Calendar · Executive Jobs |
|
| |
Posted by Martyn R Jones on July 06, 1999 at 18:06:46:
In Reply to: Re: Statement to this forum posted by Mezei on July 06, 1999 at 12:49:00:
This is a curiously interesting discussion. We are in July, that time of the year that some journalists refer to as the "silly season" – a surfeit of newspaper and printers ink and so little real news to report. Meanwhile back at the knowledge touchpoint™ at Brint. Taken on face value the discussion looks like a flame war – which I am sure it is not. Up close it touches on some old philosophical arguments. From Glasgow it looks like a difference of opinion about something completely disjoint, different and disparate – like a discussion on art, a discussion of art where there is an assumption that the discussion is focussed on a specific subject and views of that subject, only to find that: one participant is looking at the history of western art; another is discussing the post impressionists; and, yet another is discussing art from the viewpoint of Picasso, and then along comes another person who wants to focus on industrial art. So here we go. I would like to make some comments about the following:
- You can’t derive "meaning" from knowledge
- You can’t derive ethics from anything
- Something that is not true being only illusion
You can’t derive "meaning" from knowledge
I would tend to agree that we cannot always be certain that in all circumstances meaning will be derived from knowledge. However, I could not presently concur - when appraised in terms of business knowledge, business meaning - that this assumption can be held up by empirical evidence or substantial business cases.
So, how can I support my theory that, in quite a few cases, "meaning" can be derived from knowledge? Well, quite a number of times I, like a number of other people, have been able to "pay the bills" as the direct result of extracting meaning from knowledge for other businesses.
For a real theory of knowledge which does cover more than one side of A4 paper I would suggest that one took a look at a Theory of Knowledge at http://werple.net.au/~gaffcam/phil/russell1.htm (written forThe Encyclopaedia Britannica, by Bertrand Russell, 1926)
However, what seems of more interest in business in general and with regards to meaning and knowledge in particular has more to do with "If only HP knew what HP knows" by Thomas Davenport or Knowledge Management by Thomas Stewart than other serious epistemological theories such as those propounded by Hume, Popper or Bridgeman – or even Jones. (i.e. David Hume (1711-1776) In terms of the problem of induction and the proposition that there is no guarantee that induction necessarily produces knowledge. Additionally that there is no basis for a "principle of induction" - Karl Popper (1902-1994) Conceptualized, theorized and expounded notions of Falsification: basically saying that a theory can never be proved, and that every failure to falsify a theory is a tentative confirmation of said theory – duh! Percy Bridgman (1882-1961) A none-IT Operationalist: Bridgman asked "what is the meaning of physical concepts", and came up with theories about somewhat different way of eliminating metaphysics from physics. Martyn Jones (1956) CAP Theory. Cut and paste derives meaning from knowledge" … sorry, just had to sneak that one in.
You can’t derive ethics from anything
WEBSTER'S – who know a thing or two about words - defines ethics as:
- the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation,
- the set of moral principles or values,
- a theory of moral values,
- the principles of conduct governing an individual or group ….
Does this mean that we can derive Ethics from Websters?
So, maybe we can’t derive Ethics from Websters but what about:
Casuistic Ethics: the case study/case based reasoning approach which involves studying ethical dilemmas or quandaries
Normative Ethics: the study of norms and ethical principles
Agent-oriented Ethics: when the focus is on the character/virtuousness of the person and/or action to determine "right" or "wrong"
As one will know, Ethics is a pretty broad subject, and defining or generalizing about aspects of Ethics seems to be a fairly involved process requiring a degree of analysis, thought, construction, integration and synthesis that cannot normally be summarized in less than ten words.
Something that is not true being only illusion
The problem of definitions and of the 'meaning of terms' is the most important source of Aristotle's regrettably still prevailing intellectual influence (quote from a nice paper I found
at http://dieoff.com/page126.htm)Lets say something like… How about "something not true not being false"? How about an illusion that coincides with the truth? Is it still false in its illusory form or is it true, or is it neither? How about an illusion that appears to be always true?
Maybe if we revisited the notion of data, information and knowledge and said that in some ways:
Data is a symbolic yet meaningless and to some degree context free representation of "something" which might be (for example) a value, label, identifier etc.
Information can also be data in context.
Knowledge can also consist of the interpretation of information, ne cest pas.
Wisdom is …. Knowing when to stop.
Of course it can also be described, defined or derided in other terms, but in terms of explaining DIK to a business person it does help….
Best regards,
Martyn R Jones
knowledge touchpoint™ is a trademark of
Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums