Dear FIS,
Let me systematise the requirements and conditions raised so far and then discuss a proposal: Recapitulation: (maybe there will be a possibility to attach attachments to the postings. The following should be an attachment, where I recapitulate the points previous speakers have raised): Now, the question is whether we are ready to come out with a syllabus for such a course acceptable for all of us, those who are involved in the subject, and those who aren't, but participate in the development of curricula. Can we overcome differences between our views on the definition of information, on the relationship of information understood in a general way to its particular manifestations in other disciplines? Since the course (or courses) should present an identity of the discipline of Information Science, it is very important that we are convinced about the authentic existence of a large enough common ground. Can we develop a map of this territory? Can we pool resources to establish foundations for a standard, Information Science curriculum? (Marcin and Gordana) Many universities have special schools for library and information science (LIS).This is different from our discussions at this list about "information theory". Nevertheless, there is a problem with reinventing a wheel (Loet) Thus, the objective should not be a common, monolithic paradigm that "everyone will accept", but commitment to a reasoned, fallible process of selection and commitment, with the goal of enabling something new to emerge. (Joseph) What needs to be applied across all disciplines is Applied Category theory. (Gavin) What we have to do is to agree that: 1. The variety is not bad but very stimulating for reasoning, and 2. Independence is absolutely needed for growing our knowledge and developing the science. (Krassimir) If we (FIS = Foundations of Information Science) are something different from what is called “Information Science” and funded, supported by 40journals etc. we must be able to show definitely the distinction and why this is important. (Gordana) End recapitulation. Proposal: Build Information Science (as understood in FIS) from scratch. Negative Arguments: · Such has never been done before, we would be outsiders, aside the mainstream; · No one has allowed us to do so; · We do not know how to think and act independently; · Will it be worth the effort; · The strict thinking behind accounting is not my taste; · I do not look for work, I look for fame and importance and influence. Positive Arguments: · I seem to be open-minded, seeing that I am a part of an open-minded discussion forum; · I am quite capable of understanding the discussion here, so the stuff is communicable; · The audacity of the very thought is somehow fascinating; · There is a point behind saying that 2+4 is not quite exactly 1+5; · This FIS goes all about breaking taboos; · Here we have something easily communicable; · I could try to say to a friend “We work on a new understanding of additions and what that all implies. Did you know that additions were invented very long ago and since then never ever changed?” and see what he says; · I could explain that it needs computers to figure out the accounting behind what distinguishes 3+4 to 2+5, this is why it has not been done yet by Gauss or Euler or Shannon; · I could say that I was a part of the group that translated pure and abstract logic (some deep voodoos of accounting and number theory together with epistemology) into workday concepts of Physics and Chemistry, and of course, Psychology. Next Step Let us do the test of checking the intended audience for this FIS production. Whatever we call it, if we do generate (create, dream up, catalogise, package, edit, etc.) something worth to be taught, then it needs an audience. Towards whom do we want to direct our efforts of coming up with something new? Let us do a field test and see, what the intended (targeted) audience says. We come up with a good idea and translate it into widgets for the applied people. (Relative to a number theorist, everyone is an applied one, but theologians maybe.) We could call this e.g. Reorder Theory, Rend Theory, Disciplined Thinking Course, Finding Names For Facts Course or anything glitzy and fizzy. Looking forward: Karl
_______________________________________________ fis mailing list fis@listas.unizar.es https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
