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]