[Humanist] 23.173 dull and sharp
Humanist Discussion Group
willard.mccarty at mccarty.org.uk
Sun Jul 19 08:31:36 CEST 2009
Humanist Discussion Group, Vol. 23, No. 173.
Centre for Computing in the Humanities, King's College London
Submit to: humanist at lists.digitalhumanities.org
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 2009 15:11:31 +0200
From: Paolo Rocchi <PAOLOROCCHI at it.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [Humanist] 23.165 dull and sharp
In-Reply-To: <20090717050055.A68D31FF9D at woodward.joyent.us>
>> I find extraordinary Jim's remark:
>> "Some people are more interested in people,
>> Some people are more interested in things,
>> Some people are more interested in concepts."
>> My initial background stems from classical studies and I was convinced
>> that culture was the ultimate authority in society. Unfortunately fashions
>> changes and I find high-culture representatives more concerned on things
>> than on tenets and knowledge.
>Why do you find my remark extraordinary? I find it obvious and simplistic.
>Yes, if you've studied the classics, you will be studying the works of
>those who believed culture is the ultimate authority in society. But
>even then, that belief was probably not true of most people, just
>those educated enough to read and write.
Recently Milan Zeleny (*) introduced a pretty scheme to illustrate the
challenging pathway toward full scientific understanding. The scheme
includes four steps: Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom (DIKW).
Zeleny points out how *Data* is the set of measurements about an
invention. Initial elaboration of those data generates *Information* that
adds context to the invention. Scientists are able to describe the
earliest discovery after the first two stages and to answer a question
like "'What'?. Researchers become more aware of a find through successive
studies, namely they gain *Knowledge* that is composed of the insights,
the values and the judgments which make individuals capable of replying a
query about the origins of the novel phenomenon (= 'How?'). *Wisdom*, the
ultimate comprehension of a matter that answer a question like 'Why?', and
is reached as long as scientists obtain the solid conceptualization of the
entire context which rings the initial discovery.
Whereas researchers made efforts to cover the entire pathway in the past
centuries, present day researchers take two steps with ardor in order to
obtain immediate return of investments. The third step is rather tardy and
the fourth step involves a very few people. I find your aphorism may be
used to sum up the sociological experience of those (like me) who work
around the principles of computer science:
- people more interested in people and in things, say over 99%,
- people more interested in concepts, say less 1%.
It is evident how the incomplete course DIKW - say the incomplete culture
on computer systems - impairs the progress of technology and science as
von Bertalanffy argued decades ago. And frequently we go around randomly.
(*) Zeleny M. - Management Support Systems: Towards Integrated Knowledge
-Management, Human Systems Management, 7(1), (1987).
SWG Research and Development
via Shanghai 53, 00144 ROMA
fax : 39-6-5966-3618
IBM Italia S.p.A.
Sede Legale: Circonvallazione Idroscalo - 20090 Segrate (MI)
Cap. Soc. euro 400.001.359
C. F. e Reg. Imprese MI 01442240030 - Partita IVA 10914660153
Società soggetta all?attività di direzione e coordinamento di
International Business Machines Corporation
(Salvo che sia diversamente indicato sopra / Unless stated otherwise
More information about the Humanist