Replying to LO30342 --
In his article Mark writes (pdf - p17)
> "Thanks to advances made in semantic network analysis, neural networking
>tools and intelligent agents, metaclaim data can be captured and codified
>automatically online with minimum human intervention....."
This sounds like a fairly strong claim. Would like to ask Mark to take
some of his own medicine and justify this. In my experience, automatic
text processing in particular, hybrid neural networks)and statistical text
mining, would have great difficulty parsing natural language text and
extracting data (justifications) for the metaclaims. Perhaps Mark has
tried more promising alternatives?
Reading this article, I kept thinking about the role of tacit knowledge,
sense-making and using what works vs. always seeking the 'truth'. I wonder
what Mark has to say in these areas? My experience is we do a lot of
processing in the deep reaches of our social minds - mostly this is way
under the radar and never is subjected to an explicit fallibilistic
analysis, yet we advance, learn, create new knowledge and somehow survive.
===============================================
Blog - http://www.webassistant.com/site/Denham/index.html
Wiki - http://www.voght.com/cgi-bin/pywiki?KmWiki
Largest collaborative KM repository on the web - Please join us
===============================================
--Denham Grey <dgrey@iquest.net>
Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.