Mensaje original
Asunto: Re: [Fis] Beijing FIS Group
Fecha: Fri, 17 Sep 2010 10:06:30 +0300
De: Lauri Gröhn lauri.gr...@kolumbus.fi
Para: Pedro C. Marijuan pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
Referencias: 000301cb53b7$6af4f4b0$6400a...@viewsonic
4c923c73.3050...@aragon.es
Dear colleagues,
I wonder if there has been any advancement on this area during the last 10-20
years?
Lauri Gröhn
--
On Sep 16, 2010, at 6:49 PM, Pedro C. Marijuan wrote:
Dear Xueshan and Beijing colleagues,
After the salutation, given that the main business of the FIS list is
discussion, let me make a few comments on your methodological point.
3. OUR COMMON VISION ON INFORMATION SCIENCE: Within the
diversity of opinions of the group, a common position is
that the advancement of Information Science should be fueled
by theoretical and empirical work inside the major
disciplines, both in the natural sciences and the
humanities.
There is a little difference from our colleagues in Europe,
as they are adopting a top-down process while we do
like a down-top (bottom-up) process in methodology to unify
the different informational realms. We advocate the gradual
convergence among Natural Information Sciences, Technical
Information Sciences, and Social Information Sciences.
I completely agree with the common position of the Group in the first
paragraph. However (that wonderful term for disagreeing!) there is a lot
to say about the second paragraph. My personal opinion is close to what
you mean, but I want to emphasize a couple of aspects. First, that the
construction of new disciplines is not a clean theoretical act after a
great new, central theory as we usually assume; rather it becomes a
haphazard process with lots of historical accidents and non-formal
components. In the conference I made some references to the historical
origins of major disciplines along the Founding fathers and Great
Books scheme. But presumably this is not going to work for Info
Science. Rather than around a central theory, the new discipline may
revolve about the establishment of a new way of thinking (the case of
Biology, with the hegemony of the evolutionary thinking two generations
in advance of the modern NeoDarwinian Theory is a clear case). Thus, I
think that the gradual convergence you mention (and which I agree)
will be possible in the extent to which a common way of thinking is
advanced. Thus, in contra-position to the hegemonic view in natural
sciences (things in parts, atomism, reductionism, specialism, etc.) an
informational way of thinking would contain maybe --entities in the
making, constructivism communication, integrationism,
perspectivism... Well, and this leads to the second aspect, about the
model systems on which a Science of Information can more easily fit
(and say original things or solve some entrenched problems). Cells,
Brains, Societies (and the quantum) are my bet. Information Science
becomes sort of the scientific study of informational entities, those
entities that self-construct in continuous communication with their
environment... and a workable notion of information seems achievable for
living cells and beyond: information as distinction on the adjacent. It
was very pleasant realizing in the conference that there are new ideas
on Artificial Natural Intelligence, information physics, logics, etc.
where these info ideas can be confronted and recombined. The whole
field seems to be in a metastable state that can easily conduce to a
reordenation/ crystallization of the new science ---a fast and intense
episode in the social evolution of knowledge.
Thanks for the opportunity to discuss!
Pedro
--
-
Pedro C. Marijuán
Grupo de Bioinformación / Bioinformation Group
Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud
Avda. Gómez Laguna, 25, Pl. 11ª
50009 Zaragoza, Spain
Telf: 34 976 71 3526 ( 6818) Fax: 34 976 71 5554
pcmarijuan.i...@aragon.es
http://sites.google.com/site/pedrocmarijuan/
-
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
___
fis mailing list
fis@listas.unizar.es
https://webmail.unizar.es/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fis
