Re: Emergent Learning LO2135
Mon, 17 Jul 1995 09:27:12 CDT

Replying to LO2082 --

Carol Anne Ogdin

I think I agree with you on a number of points. However, I think
something is being left out of the discussion re emergent learning, tacit
knowledge. There are different philosophical perspectives that drive the
different arguments due to the assumptions one makes relevant to the
philosophical position they hold. For example, I hold that there is no
such thing as objectivity. There is instead only one reality, and that is
intersubjective. This is consistent with the multitude of sage folks in
their studies of perception - why do people see different things given the
same stimulus? ('See'means perceive, not necessarily only visual). The
reason is that we create what we perceive out of what we have known or not
known in the past relevant or seemingly so to what is now in our
perceptual fields.

How does all this translate then into the idea of data bases of knowledge
versus information? First off, we have to distinguish between meanings we
hold for information and knowledge. For my purpose, information is stuff
that can be stored, inclusive of fact, fiction, innuendo, conclusion,
conjecture, a reasoned argument, etc. Knowledge is the wisdom, the
knowing I have created from the information provided me, however I come by
that information. It follows then that information for me can be the
result of meanings someone earlier has created, and for them represents
their knowledge. Following along with the intersubjective reality
philosophical perspective, the data base cannot be assumed to be a set of
predetermined knowledge, that is, knowledge there to found in the set of
information, rather, a set of information that can be used to create
knowledge by some entrepreneural (sp?) learner.

I'm afraid this got a little garbled and complicated in the final
analysis, but hopefully, tho you may not agree, it makes sense to someone
besides myself. ---

John P Wilson