Replying to LO30951 --
John:
Thanks for the chuckles. I guess I find your description of Argyris's
scheme, however, to be flawed (his scheme as you described it, that
is) in the following ways:
1. Data are linguistic expressions that we create which make claims
about the world, and I do not accept your premise that we would
necessarily mutually agree on what they say. And that is why we
should recognize them as nothing more than claims, about which good
people sometimes, if not often, disagree. Your description of data,
by contrast, seems to call for us to rally around the notion that some
claims can be certain, and I simply will not do that. And if that's
what Argyris was saying, I disagree with him too.
2. Next, you speak of the three types of meanings of data. Can you
not see, though, that all three are 'descriptive assertions' in form?
They make claims about the world (a guitar, in your example) from
different points of view, I agree, but they are all descriptive
assertions nonetheless. So let's look at them from that perspective.
When we do, I can then ask if each one of them is true or false. In
other words, does the content of the claim correspond with the way the
guitar really is? So on this point I may not disagree with Argyris
(or your particular characterization of what you say he said), rather
I'd simply say 'so what?' The value of the lesson in the
characterization doesn't go far enough, especially not in terms of
recognizing the common assertive content of the claim-types cited by
Argyris, much less in dealing with the issue of whether or not they
are true and how to perform such assessments.
3. Then you speak further of the difference Argyris alleges between
data and his three claim-types. But since I have explained that data
ARE claims, the distinction you speak is overdrawn. I cannot see how
one can separate data from its semantic content, since data is a claim
that SAYS something. And if it was Argyris's intention to prop up
this distinction by relying upon the immutable truth of what he calls
data, then I say again as I did above that such 'foundationalist'
notions of knowledge are arguably false, and all data is fallible and
subject to error, since all data merely expresses someone's
descriptive assertions about the world. So there is no such data with
certainty.
4. Last, I do not see why, or agree, that the term 'statement'
necessarily implies certainty. It does not. I can make a statement
that may be false (as I often do, so I'm told). And I do not agree
that terms like "attributions" or "evaluations" are somehow immune
from error. Are all attributions true? Are all evaluations true?
Of course not. Similarly, you said "an advocacy is not data but
someone's interpretation." So? It's still a claim, isn't it? One
that may be true or false, right? So rather than gloss over the fact
that the three types of statements cited in the Argyris scheme all
share the same property of being 'descriptive assertions' that make
claims about the world, I say let's reduce the complexity and increase
the clarity by acknowledging that all three are 'descriptive
assertions.' Then we can rise to the more important question of how we
determine the truth or falsity of a claim, including claims made in
the form of data.
Data is nothing but a type of information that we create, which makes
claims about the world. And any such claims may or may not correspond
with the facts (i.e., with the way the world really is).
Regards,
Mark
Mark W. McElroy
Co-Director, KMCI (www.kmci.org)
CEO, Macroinnovation Associates, LLC (www.macroinnovation.com)
(802) 436-2250
>Assuming that Chris is covering the same territory, I'd like to
>advocate that his categories of directly observable data, attribution,
>advocacy and evaluation are superior to the categories fact and
>statement, if only because fact and statement are more commonly used
>and thus more easily mis-interpreted. Also, Statement to me suggest
>something I am asserting to be true that may not be, and I personally
>prefer the more clinical terms Chris uses, since within his theory one
>understands that an advocacy is not data but someone's interpretation.
>But I admit that I am biased by 20 years of having these categories in
>my head.
[...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.