User:KYPark/000
Master's Thesis, University of London, 1975
Submitted by Kyung-Youn Park
Supervised by B. C. Brookes
University College London
Table of Contents
WHAT WHY HOW 1. INTRODUCTION 2. THE LINE OF ATTACK 3. SYSTEMS VS. USERS 3.1 Discrimination 3.2 Prediction 4. DOCUMENTS VS. SURROGATES 5. THE THEORY OF INTERPRETATION 5.1 Denotation and Connotation 5.2 The Theory of Ogden and Richards 5.3 Implications for Information Retrieval 6. PROPOSAL FOR FILE ORGANIZATION 6.1 Incentives 6.2 Extracts as Indexing Sources 6.3 Extracts as Review Sources 7. CONCLUSION 8. REFERENCES
| Contents |
|---|
PREFATORY QUOTATIONS
[edit]WHAT
[edit]"What we should do, I suggest, is to give up the idea of ultimate sources of knowledge, and admit that all knowledge is human; that it is mixed with our errors, our prejudices, our dreams, and our hopes; that all we can do is to grope for truth even though it be beyond our reach. We may admit that our groping is often inspired, but we must be on our guard against the belief, however deeply felt, that our inspiration carries any authority, divine or otherwise. If we thus admit that there is no authority beyond the reach of criticism to be found within the whole province of our knowledge, however far it may have penetrated into the unknown, then we can retain, without danger, the idea that truth is beyond human authority. And we must retain it. For without this idea there can be no objective standards of inquiry; no criticism of our conjectures; no groping for the unknown; no quest for knowledge."
WHY
[edit]"In science men have learned consciously to subordinate themselves to a common purpose without losing the individuality of their achievements. Each one knows that his work depends on that of his predecessors and colleagues, and that it can only reach its fruition through the work of his successors."
HOW
[edit]"The modern World Encyclopaedia should consist of relations, extracts, quotations, very carefully assembled with the approval of outstanding authorities in each subject, carefully collated and edited and critically presented. It would not be a miscellany, but a concentration, a clarification and a synthesis."
AFTERTHOUGHTS
[edit]Popper 1963
[edit]- "... we can retain, without danger, the idea that truth is beyond human authority."
This passage may be frustratingly at odds with Popper's later argument for the "objective knowledge without a knowing subject" that may lie in World 3 that is exactly human creation, hence, "human authority" in point.
Bernal 1939
[edit]Science as Communism. -- Already we have in the practice of science the prototype for all human common action. The task which the scientists have undertaken -- the understanding and control of nature and of man himself -- is merely the conscious expression of the task of human society. The methods by which this task is attempted, however imperfectly they are realized, are the methods by which humanity is most likely to secure its own future. In its endeavour, science is communism. In science men have learned consciously to subordinate themselves to a common purpose without losing the individuality of their achievements. Each one knows that his work depends on that of his predecessors and colleagues, and that it can only reach its fruition through the work of his successors. In science men collaborate not because they are forced to by superior authority or because they blindly follow some chosen leader, but because they realize that only in this willing collaboration can each man find his goal. Not orders, but advice, determines action. Each man knows that only by advice, honestly and disinterestedly given, can his work succeed, because such advice expresses as near as may be the inexorable logic of the material world, stubborn fact. Facts cannot be forced to our desires, and freedom comes by admitting this necessity and not by pretending to ignore it. These are things that have been learned painfully and incompletely in the pursuit of science. Only in the wider tasks of humanity will their use be found. (pp. 415-6; boldtype not original)
— The Social Function of Science
- The boldtyped indicates Park's (1975) quotation under WHY.
- This and what follows down to the end was quoted in Eugene Garfield (1982) "J.D. Bernal, The Sage of Cambridge: 4S Award Memorializes His Contributions to the Social Studies of Science." Current Contents, No. 19, pp. 5-17, May 10, 1982. pdf
Wells 1938
[edit]H. G. Wells may well be the ideal father of the "atomic bomb" while Vannevar Bush the material father thereof.
This is not the end of their commonality. The former seems to have greatly inspired the latter, judging from their seminal ideas, Wells (1938) and Bush (1939, 1945).
It would be a great historical curiosity if Vannevar Bush never knew about the World Brain but the atomic bomb, both of Wells's invention.
Blair 2002
[edit]- Explicit questions of knowledge management
- David Blair (2002), "Knowledge Management: Hype, Hope, or Help?" Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, vol. 53, no. 12, pp. 1019-1028. Abstract
| 3Ws | Blair (2002) |
|---|---|
| What | "One: What is 'knowledge'?" |
| Why | "Two: Why are people [...] thinking about Knowledge Management?" |
| How | "Three: What are the enabling technologies for Knowledge Management?" |
Bates 1999
[edit]- Big questions of information science
- Marcia Bates (1999), "The Invisible Substrate of Information Science," Journal of the American Society for Information Science, vol.50, no.12, pp. 1043-1050. [ACM] Text
| 3Ws | Bates (1999) |
|---|---|
| What | "The physical question: What are the features and laws of the recorded-information universe?" |
| Why | "The social question: How do people relate to, seek, and use information?" |
| How | "The design question: How can access to recorded information be made most rapid and effective?" |
Park 1975
[edit]- Fundamental questions of information retrieval
- Kyung-Youn Park (1975). A Direct Approach to Information Retrieval (An unpublished master's dissertation), University of London, 1975.
| 3Ws | Park (1975) |
|---|---|
| What | "What is scientific information?" |
| Why | "Why should scientific information be organized?" |
| How | "How can scientific information be organized?" |
Blair and Bates and Park
[edit]- Three Similar & Different Threads of Questioning
| Blair (2002) "explicit questions" |
Bates (1999) "Big Questions" |
Park (1975) "fundamental questions" |
|---|---|---|
| "One: What is 'knowledge'?" | "The physical question: What are the features and laws of the recorded-information universe?" | WHAT: "What is scientific information?" |
| "Two: Why are people [...] thinking about Knowledge Management?" | "The social question: How do people relate to, seek, and use information?" | WHY: "Why should scientific information be organized?" |
| "Three: What are the enabling technologies for Knowledge Management?" | "The design question: How can access to recorded information be made most rapid and effective?" | HOW: "How can scientific information be organized?" |
Note that Park's (1975) resolutions of the three separate questions commonly center around science in and for society, implicitly if not explicitly.
Adler 1988
[edit]- Necessary types of leaning and teaching
The essence of the proposal involved three necessary types of learning and respective types of teaching: knowing what, knowing how, and knowing why: One of these was lacking from present-day practice after kindergarten and first grade. [Gothic not original]
— Excerpt from Paideia Proposal
Didactic instruction (traditional lecturing) was by and large the primary mode of teaching being applied in the traditional system. Its purpose was for the acquisition of organized knowledge or facts. Adler placed the least value on this form of knowledge, arguing that it generally fades away with time, asserting for example that he had forgotten almost all of the information imparted to him in this fashion.
Coaching is performed so that the student may acquire skills, such as reading, writing, speaking, listening, calculating, problem-solving, estimating, measuring, and exercising critical judgement. Skills are habits, not memories, thus are much more durable than memories, especially memories not based upon understanding. Skills must also be maintained to remain sharp, and are less durable than the understanding achieved through the Socratic method.
The Socratic method (extended discussion) is the only path to understanding basic ideas and values. This cannot be acquired through didactic teaching or coaching. The basis of discussion cannot be textbooks, but must be works of art and books that deal with ideas and values. Adler states that our teachers are totally untrained for this. The seminars would be constructed in two dimensions. In the vertical dimension, the teacher would provide and order questions aimed at the development of understanding ideas (not for covering predetermined ground). In a horizontal dimension, discussion would be open to all possible answers from students in response to the questions. If a seminar is too open in both dimensions, or focused primarily within the horizontal dimension, it may become loose and undirected. When it is directed and controlled in both dimensions or focused primarily on the vertical dimension, it becomes didactic and dogmatic. Seminar styles would vary widely depending on subject matter and participants, but Adler felt that any teacher who follows his prescription and is also a superior learner, cannot fail to allow his students to also become inspired and life long learners.
See also
[edit]- Kyung-Youn Park
- B. C. Brookes
- University College London
- University of London
- K. R. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations
- J. D. Bernal, The Social Function of Science
- H. G. Wells, World Brain