Replying to LO30944 --
Hello Cynthia:
Welcome to the conversation! My original intent in introducing the
term "fact" to the discussion was to have a term that we could use in
referring to things that exist in the world. This, of course, is to
rely on realism, the doctrine that the world is real in the first
place and that it exists independent of us -- although we are part of
it as well. So we could say that 'the moon is a fact' because it
arguably exists. This is consistent with one definition of "fact,"
which is simply 'something that has existence.'
That said, it really doesn't matter what we call things that exist.
I call them facts because that is a valid use of the term. Others can
call them what they like. So let's just agree that we're talking
about things that exist.
I first raised this issue in connection with a question. The question
was, 'Can there be such a thing as correspondence between a statement
and a fact to which it refers?' Lest we lose sight of why we're having
this conversation, I refer readers back to the name of this thread
'Knowledge and Information.' The point of all of this was to make the
distinction between those two terms in some meaningful way. I put
forward the idea that knowledge consists of beliefs or claims that
have survived our tests and evaluations with regard to the veracity of
their assertive content.
[Host's Note: see http://www.learning-org.com/04.01/thread.html#27 for
the start of this thread. ..Rick]
In other words, knowledge consists of beliefs or claims that we think
are true. Information consists of beliefs or claims that exist (in
linguistic forms), but which may not have been tested and evaluated.
Knowledge, then, is a type of information. The two terms are not
mutually exclusive, nor is knowledge something silly like 'information
in context' or any of the other somewhat ad hoc definitions floating
around these days. All information has context, even false
information. Would we say that false information is knowledge? I
doubt it.
Now for truth, and the reason why I raised the question I quoted
above. The so-called commonsense theory of truth is the
'correspondence theory of truth.' Simply put, it says that we can make
statements about the world (facts) that descriptively correspond with
the facts. In other words, the answer to my question is 'yes.' That
said, if we want to have knowledge, we should strive to form
statements about the world that correspond with the facts. This
highlights the importance of language in learning and in our search
for knowledge.
This also highlights the importance of embracing an argumentative
rigor in the conduct of human affairs that places a high value on the
veracity of what we say. And it also highlights the importance of
disregarding the rank or title of people who make statements or claims
about the world, the business, our company, what we should do, etc.
Even managers! Learning in organizations is best served by a
knowledge ethic that values truth on its OWN merits as a basis of
action, and which defines truth as the correspondence between the
world and what we say about it. If it's effective action we want (and
who doesn't), then it had better be action taken on the basis of
beliefs and statements that are true and which correspond with the
facts!
The social aspect of knowledge production that you refer to is very
real indeed. For how else can we (as collectives) take effective
action on the basis of true statements if not by making those
statements public and subjecting them to open criticism? But none of
that is to say that knowledge produced in such ways is necessarily
true, since as you say, there is an irreducible epistemic gap between
us (our minds) and the world around us. The moon may exist (we think)
but we are not in direct touch with the moon. It is not inside of us,
nor are we inside of it, nor are we a part of it. We cannot directly
experience it or anything else.
Knowledge making is absolutely a social process, but the knowledge we
make may always be mistaken. This is the all-important fallibilist
position taken by what my colleagues and I in the field of 'The New
Knowledge Management' hold so dear. We believe knowledge production
is a social process and that what it allows us to do is to make
statements and form beliefs about the world that might be true, but
which we can never be certain are true. The best we can do, then, is
to subject our beliefs and claims about the world to continual and
open criticism, hence the social process aspect of learning.
We call this approach to knowledge production the 'Criticalist'
approach. It can serve as an inspiration for Knowledge Management and
OL strategies and interventions, since it provides us with a vision of
how the ideal learning organization should operate and how, thereby,
to create one. We call the related normative organizational model
'The Open Enterprise.' You can learn more about the Criticalist
knowledge ethic, or epistemology, and the many others that it competes
with by downloading the following pdf file on 'Corporate
Epistemology':
http://www.macroinnovation.com/images/corporate_epistemolo.pdf
You can learn more about The Open Enterprise and how to build and
maintain them through programs offered by KMCI (www.kmci.org). I hope
this has been helpful.
Regards,
Mark
Mark W. McElroy
Co-Director, KMCI (www.kmci.org)
CEO, Macroinnovation Associates, LLC (www.macroinnovation.com)
(802) 436-2250
>Hi Hal and Phil and everyone,
>
>This feels quite scary to way into such a profound debate - but in the
>spirit of learning, I have written my own understandings below in this
>my first post to the list. I am currently a PhD student bridging
>between Education and Management and intrigued by the possibilities of
>the application of learning and systems within organisations.
>Previously I worked as a professional development co-ordinator in a
>large organisation. Now I immerse myself fully in learning again.
[...snip by your host...]
--"Mark W. McElroy" <mmcelroy@vermontel.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.