Replying to LO30688 --
[Host's Note: this is a corrected version of Hal's message. In the first
version, Mark's words and Hal's reply were not distinguished. This is
a problem from time to time, I try to catch it but sometimes miss. Please
use the ">" symbol to mark quoted text. ..Rick]
Hello Mark -
You make several good points but we are still missing each other slightly:
In a message dated 10/10/2003 11:04:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
mmcelroy@vermontel.net writes:
>But once expressed, much explicit knowledge is full of logical
>implications that have not yet been discovered or realized by anyone.
>Thus, a well thought out theory that has been expressed in writing as a
>record of someone's thinking or beliefs may be full of logical
>implications that even the originator of the theory is unaware of. They
>are future internalizations, to use your word, not past ones. And yet,
>they are still arguably in there!
Yes, these future connections are (arguably) "in there" - sort of a Prego
theory . . . :-)
But I assert these connections are not knowledge until they are, to use
your word, discovered. (Here I assume discovered means found and thought
about by a knowledge-holding, knowledge-executing creature)
Your argument relies on the "knowledge" being eventually "discovered" or
at least discoverABLE if I read you correctly. That is, it is still a
"mind in the loop" knowledge definition with action (internal or external)
the sole means of detecting the knowledge.
A connection ready to make is not a connection made.
The rest of your argument is founded on a belief that a connection made
more ready (but not yet connected) is knowledge - I disagree (Note that I
do not use objectionable words here such as "mistake" or "slip backwards")
So my assertion that knowledge may only be detected by action (internal or
external) still stands unchallenged.
You make a sort of side point later in your note revolving around the
nature of facts and the truth or falsity of same.
In a message dated 10/10/2003 11:04:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
mmcelroy@vermontel.net writes:
>When you say "When we learn facts [it is] not knowledge but information,"
>you, and others, commit the mistake of glossing over the very important
>consideration of whether or not what we think we have learned is true or
>false.
In this, unfortunately, you seem to miss the definition of the word "fact"
- if a belief is false it is, by definition NOT a fact. The word "fact"
carries with it this truth / falsity breastwork which you accuse the rest
of us of ignoring.
Main Entry: fact
Pronunciation: 'fakt
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin factum, from neuter of factus, past participle of facere
Date: 15th century
1 : a thing done: as a : obsolete : FEAT b : CRIME <accessory after the fact>
c : archaic : ACTION
2 : archaic : PERFORMANCE, DOING
3 : the quality of being actual : ACTUALITY <a question of fact hinges on
evidence>
4 a : something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact> b
: an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality
- in fact : in truth
A fact IS reality, actuality, truth.
Thus, I believe my assertion of information as "the facts" and knowledge
as "what to do about the facts" also stands unchallenged. The group HAS
refined my thinking to be inclusive of "mental activity" in the word
"action".
So we do progress . . .
Best regards,
Hal Popplewell
Chairman and CEO
AgentWare Systems, Inc.
186 East Main Street - Suite 300
Northville, Michigan 48167
Office: 248-735-4497
Fax: 248-735-4509
Cell: 248-444-7818
hal@agentwaresystems.com
http://www.agentwaresystems.com
--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.