dear ken,
i read your text but i couldn't not possibly know its meaning until after
reading it. i presume another reader may well read it differently. and
worse, someone unfamiliar with distinguishing characters and the practice
of scanning them from left to right and from top to bottom may see patterns
but no text. so, what are you composing without a reader? my short
answer: it is unknowable.
in my opinion, your contention that there are facts of nature regardless of
anyone recognizing them as such and that there is information in books
regardless of anyone's state of knowledge goes against all we know of human
epistemology, even against information theory.
shannon's information theory measures the information quantity of a message
against the background of all messages already known. a message already
known does not add information. information is always relative to prior
knowledge (or a larger set of messages).
from where i come from, facts of nature are invented by natural
scientists. scientists profess to be experts at describing them and in so
doing either are unaware of their role in making them or cynically preserve
their authority by hiding behind an illusionary conception of
objectivity. after all, "fact" is a derivative of "factum", latin for
making, producing. the biologist ruth hubbard once said, pointedly: "every
fact has a factor."
i understand your quite practical intent, of course, when you say that "the
term information permits one to deal with structured data stored in books,
computers, etc., without regard to what one does with it." but note the
epistemological paradox you get yourself into: your sentence states the
usefulness of making your distinction while asking us to ignore the reason
for making the distinction. it reminds me of heinz von foerster's
definition of objectivity: "objectivity is the illusion of being able to
observe reality without an observer."
what does this have to do with design? well, i do not want to advertise
product semantics at this point, but this is a discourse that avoids being
drawn into these illusionary objectivisms. for example, it suggests
"forms" to be not of nature but re-cognized and described by someone who
may have good reasons to momentarily ignore their context and how others
see them. it respects the difference between my way of seeing and someone
else's way of seeing and thereby invites interactive or dialogical
explanations of what happens when such differences are encountered (why we
communicate). it acknowledges that humans co-construct their worlds to
live in them. as such, it provides spaces for designers to contribute
changes to these worlds. and it avoids universalist=authoritarian
constructions of reality such as embodies in the traditional belief that
designers (authors) are in charge of (have the authority to determine) how
people see and use their artifacts. etc.
it is late.
klaus
At 07:47 PM 10/11/00 +0200, Ken Friedman wrote:
>Dear Klaus,
>
>For this issue, I have what seems to me a reasonable answer.
>
>"i don't know why you wish to define data and information independent of
>humans."
>
>The term data permits one to define facts or states or [whatever] in the
>world as distinct from its perceivers, and the term information permits one
>to deal with structured data stored in books, computers, etc., without
>regardto what one does with it.
>
>In one sense, I agree that "text needs a reader to be a text."
>
>The other issues become fuzzy. While "information is always relative to
>someone's state of knowing," information can also exist regardless of the
>state of knowing or the use made of it. I don't know the informationj
>printed in today's New York Times, but it is there and it exists.
>
>Data also exist. There is some kind of temperature in Toledo or Timbuktoo
>or on the moon, whether I've measured it or not. At least those kinds of
>data are facts of nature.
>
>I'm not sure that Dubya's IQ or his compassion quotient would hold the same
>kind of status, but there are facts of nature and some other items that
>could fairly be called data whether we know them or not and without regard
>to our feelings or construction.
>
>Anyhow, that's my thinking on this.
>
>Like the world and like your site, my thoughts are also under construction.
>
>Warm regards,
>
>Ken
>
>p.s. I observe that you posted your reply to me to the list, so I'll answer
>to make my thoughts clear.
>
>I notice with some puzzlement the fact that so many people post BOTH to the
>list AND to respondents. When one posts to the list, everyone can read and
>there is no need to respond ALSO to individuals.
>
>When I post to the list, I intend to be read by all. When I post to a
>private person using the reply default, I intend to respond only to that
>person. It's no big deal on this ... had nothing private to say.
>
>For the sake of clarity, though, it should be clear that there are
>responses to the list which go to everyone and posts to private persons
>which go to them alone. I clearly distinguish between those categories, and
>when I post to the list, I don't bother with a private response
>specifically because I know the single individual is going to read it when
>all our other colleagues do.
>
>
> >ken,
> >
> >thanks for your comment.
> >
> >i don't know why you wish to define data and information independent of
> >humans. i have worked much on content analysis, as you know, and came to
> >understand that text needs a reader to be a text. information is always
> >relative to someone's state of knowing. and data are made by someone who
> >by denying their making wants them to be accepted as facts of nature. i
> >don't want to buy into this epistemology.
> >
> >although i should know the mary cathrin bateson story, it doesn't ring a
> >bell right now.
> >
> >greetings
> >
> >klaus
> >
>
>
>Ken Friedman, Ph.D.
>Associate Professor of Leadership and Strategic Design
>Department of Knowledge Management
>Norwegian School of Management
>
>+47 22.98.50.00 Telephone
>+47 22.98.51.11 Telefax
>
>Home office:
>
>+46 (46) 53.245 Telephone
>+46 (46) 53.345 Telefax
>
>email: [log in to unmask]
klaus krippendorff
gregory bateson professor for
cybernetics, language, and communication
the annenberg school for communication
university of pennsylvania
3620 walnut street
philadelphia, pa 19104-6220
telephone: 215.898.7051 (office); 215.545.9356 (home)
fax: 215.898.2024 (office); 215.545.9357 (home)
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
www.asc.upenn.edu/usr/krippendorff/index.html
