Posted by Reilly Atkinson on October 25, 2000 at 13:55:20:

In Reply to: K from D/I posted by Gautam on October 25, 2000 at 05:58:37:

Gentlemen -- The number and types of approaches to generating knowledge from data and information, while not infinite, are virtually uncountable. And, as the neurophysiologists will tell us, there is a great deal of knowledge yet to be gained about how we actually generate knowledge. And, as the recent Nobel Prize awarded to Eric Kandel for work on learning at the neural level in sea slugs, we do know a few things -- like learning appears to be related to chemical and structural changes in neurons in response to data from the external world. So, from a scientific perspective, Gautam, your question simply cannot be answered -- we do not fully understand the very basic neural mechanisms that underly our cognitive functioning.

That being said, let's take a more practical look at your question. What do people actually do? Even that's a tough one. Take astronomy, for example. For millenia people have been creating knowledge from observational astronomical data -- from unaided observations to the Hubble. Our entire knowledge of the Universe has been developed from all this observational data by any number of people using any number of different approaches and techniques. To make matters worse, the same is true of the other basic sciences of physics, chemistry and biology. The scientific method says be empirical, the rest is up to you. Still, no answer in sight.

Reduce to business, and still there are huge numbers of approaches to knowledge -- all of statistics, all of applied mathematics, much of engineering, each of which are composed of many subdivisions, each with quite specific and distinct approaches to gaining understanding. Even with something as nominally specific as neural networks, there are many approaches that can provide different insights into developing knowledge.

And, of course, similar descriptive problems exist with the use of language as a tool for developing knoledge. You have your books, your dialogue, your mentors, ....Try to remember, for example, all the ways you learned in school.

I've been making my living by creating knowledge for a very long time, primarily by means of data anlysis in science and business. I haven't a clue about all the ways I've done this. But, for example, I do know that I've solved many problems with a flash of insight, sometimes with out benefit of any dialogue. How and why these flashes occur is quite beyond me. I know others who operate similarly. And, I know others who are more prone to grind it out -- often these folks are quite solitary in their work life, eschewing, as they do, a sense of community. There are many quite disperate styles that work -- it's tough to find many common patterns.

So, what's left? The whole issue of knowledge creation or inference is beyond the ken of anyone. But, there is no reason to quit because of the immense intellectual difficulties. Rather, focus upon a single problem, a single issue. As much as possible, spend time observing and conversing with the analysts. Be empirical. Barring that, go for the literature that focuses on descriptions and discussions of individuals (Howard Gardiner's Creating Minds) and/or teams or projects (re The Manhatten Project, the British Enigma Project in WWII). If you do something like this, you might help bring the field of KM an additional touch of reality, which it sorely needs.

Sorry to be so long winded. But I've had a passionate interest in these matters since I was an undergraduate. Knowledge is neither monolithic nor easily put into a few categories.

Regards,
Reilly Atkinson

---

Follow Ups:

---

Click Here to Post Follow Up in New Forums

    Knowledge Management Think Tank (New)

  

 Subject: 

Message: