tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23841373170856226682024-03-13T08:50:26.474-07:00Knowledge ModelAn attempt to develop a theory of knowledge that people can actually use.David Flinthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11063189611159076891noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2384137317085622668.post-16981375162419547182009-09-12T07:52:00.000-07:002009-10-06T02:17:35.989-07:00Can a taxonomy be true?<span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">In a </span><a style="font-family: times new roman;" href="http://knowledgemodel.blogspot.com/2008/01/why-knowledge-is-not-justified-true.html"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">previous posting</span></a></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> </span><span style="font-family:times new roman;">I argued that what distinguishes knowledge from mere opinion is that the arguments </span><span style="font-family:times new roman;">and evidence in</span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> </span><span lang="EN-GB"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">its favour</span></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> make it seem more likely than not to be true. It’s not necessary, because it’s generally not possible, to be </span><u><span style="font-family:times new roman;">sure</span></u> that they are true.<span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;">This is fairly clear for the simple propositions considered by philosophers and for scientific theories but I’ve argued, in </span><a href="http://knowledgemodel.blogspot.com/2008/01/types-of-model.html"><span style="text-decoration: none;color:black;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Types of model</span></span></a><span style="font-family:times new roman;">,</span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> that knowledge includes</span><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> </span></span>other things, such as taxonomies. But what does it mean for a taxonomy to be true?<span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">The need for clarity</span></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span>The first requirement is that the taxonomy is clearly defined. Specifically, that the definitions of the categories ensure that the people using the taxonomy can fairly readily agree on how to categorise a typical thing to which the taxonomy is supposed to apply.<span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">The need for similarity</span></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span>The second requirement is that things allocated to one category should be more similar to one another than they are to things in other categories. The similarity can apply to any property of interest. If I classify things on the basis of some property of interest to you then you will be able to locate them subsequently. This works for filing systems, library classification systems, classification systems for businesses, etc.<span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span>The best taxonomies pass the similarity test for many properties of the things in question and often work because of some underlying property of those things. The Periodic Table of the Elements is an excellent example. Elements in the same group have many similar physical and chemical properties because of similarities in the orbits of their electrons.<span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Testing for falsifiability</span></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span>As Karl Popper showed it is, outside logic and maths, generally impossible to prove truth but often possible, and generally more useful, to try to prove a claim false. So can a taxonomy be proved false?<span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span>Indeed it can.<span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span>Consider the system of diagnoses used by psychiatrists. There are some differences between psychiatrists but most divide mental illnesses into neuroses and psychoses:<span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span><ul><li><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Neuroses are further divided into anxiety, depression, obsession and various phobias.</span></span></li><li><span style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Psychoses are further divided into schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, paranoia, etc.</span></span></li></ul><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Richard Bentall, a professor of clinical psychology, has examined the evidence for this diagnostic approach in </span><i style="font-family: times new roman;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">Madness Explained. </span></i><span style="font-family:times new roman;">He's shown</span> that these conditions are not met. Psychiatrists do not agree on diagnoses and diagnoses are poor guides to treatment or outcomes. Research also shows that doctors can get better guidance on treatment by considering symptoms alone and ignoring diagnostic labels.<span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span>These findings, which are not particularly new, have profound implications for psychiatry. It has been going down a blind alley for over 100 years!<span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"><br /></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;">It’s also significant for my model of knowledge since it shows that a taxonomy can be seen as an hypothesis that meets Popper’s test of falsifiability. So a taxonomy </span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-family:times new roman;">is</span></span><span style="font-family:times new roman;"> a form of knowledge.</span>David Flinthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11063189611159076891noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2384137317085622668.post-63835600526628529142009-07-14T02:56:00.000-07:002009-07-15T04:12:28.161-07:00Creating the message<a>In my </a><a href="http://knowledgemodel.blogspot.com/2009/06/information-is-data-in-context.html">last post</a> I showed how an extended semiotic framework could resolve the old data/information chestnut. I showed that during decoding the recipient must use several kinds of knowledge, eg of grammar and coding, that was also used by the sender. Now I want to look at the process of composition. In this, as with decoding, the levels are applied successively but from top to bottom. At each level the sender makes one or more choices on the basis of what he believes that the recipient also knows. Specific steps, technical or otherwise, may be needed to ensure that the recipient does know it.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-piUsxKbtZg/Sl2qsSJSA3I/AAAAAAAAADY/jdf_2YqDQ7w/s1600-h/Semniotic+model+gif.gif"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 468px; height: 238px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-piUsxKbtZg/Sl2qsSJSA3I/AAAAAAAAADY/jdf_2YqDQ7w/s320/Semniotic+model+gif.gif" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5358626809402491762" border="0" /></a>The starting point is always an intention. This may be to transfer information but is often to produce action, eg giving an command or placing an order. In either case the sender needs to know what the intended recipient already knows about the topic.<br /><br />For instance, if I wish to explain collaterised debt obligations to you I need to know how much you already know about markets and derivatives. Similarly, if I wish to order a garden hammock from you I should first establish that you sell such hammocks. At the <span style="font-weight: bold;">pragmatic</span> level this provides the shared context within which communication will occur.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">(Human beings routinely negotiate these issues but IT systems lack this flexibility. Therefore,</span> <span style="font-style: italic;">where the sender and recipient are IT applications</span><span style="font-style: italic;">, such as an ERP or online order taking system, these matters must, unless relevant standards already exist, be negotiated between the parties. The pragmatic context may include agreements on the legal </span><span style="font-style: italic;">significance of messages, the speed with which orders should be honoured, etc. At least some of the context may be stated in commercial terms and conditions, in contracts or in national law.)</span><br /><br />From the context and his intent the sender must decide what information he needs to transfer. In the general case of inter-personal communication, including negotiating, teaching, etc., this is, in fact, the most difficult step. In IT systems its often strongly constrained by obvious needs, eg to specify the product being ordered, and constraints, eg everything has to be typed by a telesales agent.<br /><br />This information is now passed to the <span style="font-weight: bold;">semantic </span>level where the sender selects the natural language and/or coding system to be used. The natural language should, obviously, be one that the recipient understands and this also applies to any technical terms used. In the case of coding systems there is often an obvious choice, eg the Gregorian calendar for dates, WGS 84 for lattitude and longitude, but other systems remain in use so it may be necessary to specify the system in use. The choice of units of measurement is also part of the semantic level.<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">(W</span><span style="font-style: italic;">here the sender and recipient are IT applications</span><span style="font-style: italic;"> these decisions may be taken by </span><span style="font-style: italic;"> the designer of one or the other or negotiated between them. They will not generally be taken by </span><span style="font-style: italic;">any individual user. They may be </span><span style="font-style: italic;">documented in a data dictionary but as natural language text as </span><span style="font-style: italic;">there are no commonly used notations for expressing semantic choices.</span><span style="font-style: italic;">)</span><br /><br /><units?>At <span style="font-weight: bold;">syntactic </span>level the sender will apply his knowledge of grammar to create grammatically correct sentences in the chosen natural language. The grammar generally follows from the choice of natural language.<br /><br />At <span style="font-weight: bold;">lexical </span>level the words are converted into letters and punctuation marks. In most cases the lexical rules </units?>follows from the choice of natural language but there are a few languages, eg Serbo-Croat, that are written in more than one script.<br /><units?><br />At <span style="font-weight: bold;">coding </span>level the symbols are converted into bytes (this is almost always automatic).<br /><br />Finally, the bytes are inserted into the fields in a pre-agreed structure (the <span style="font-weight: bold;">format </span>level).<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;">(Where the sender and recipient are IT applications the format may be decided by the designer of one or the other or negotiated between them. There are several commonly used notations for defining such structures. It may be documented in a data dictionary and also stored in a database schema.)</span><br /><br />We now have a sequence of bytes that can be sent electronically as a message with confidence that the recipient will be able to recover the intended meaning.<br /><br /></units?>David Flinthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11063189611159076891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2384137317085622668.post-60557273956063282192009-06-02T03:49:00.000-07:002009-07-15T03:59:58.517-07:00Information IS data in contextThere has been a lot of discussion about the meaning of data, information, knowledge, wisdom and metadata. Though often entertaining this discussion usually generates more light than heat. Here I will use an expanded version of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics">semiotic framework</a> to resolve the confusion. I find that information IS "data in context" and data IS an encoded form of information. However, the context has several layers, each of which contributes to the encoding of information as data. Much of the confusion is due to ignoring the layered nature of the context.<o:p></o:p><p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">I will consider the steps needed to fully understand a message (or stored record). I’ll assume that the message is digitally encoded – though this is almost irrelevant to the analysis. Initially, let’s assume that the message is English text.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><span style="">a)<span style=";font-family:";font-size:7;" > </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="" lang="EN-GB">I receive a message comprising a string of bytes.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><span style="">b)<span style=";font-family:";font-size:7;" > </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="" lang="EN-GB">I can covert this into printed, or displayed, characters. But to do this properly I must know which character coding system, eg EBCDIC, was used to create the message.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><span style="">c)<span style=";font-family:";font-size:7;" > </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Next I use my lexical knowledge to recognise words and punctuation marks.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><span style="">d)<span style=";font-family:";font-size:7;" > </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="" lang="EN-GB">And then my syntactic knowledge to parse it. I now see the text as a structure, specifically a sentence, with a subject, clauses, etc.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><span style="">e)<span style=";font-family:";font-size:7;" > </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Adding my semantic knowledge (of what the words mean) gives me the <u>meaning</u> of the sentence.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36pt; text-indent: -18pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><span style="">f)<span style=";font-family:";font-size:7;" > </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Finally I relate this meaning to other relevant knowledge (the context for the sentence) and see the <u>significance</u> of the message.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">At each step the decoder, whether human or electronic, must apply information it already knows. This information may be called metadata. Here’s a summary:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border: medium none ; margin-left: 68.4pt; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 73.25pt;" valign="top" width="98"> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Semiotic level<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </td> <td style="border-style: solid solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 151.75pt;" valign="top" width="202"> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">What is added by the receiver<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </td> <td style="border-style: solid solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 149.4pt;" valign="top" width="199"> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">The result<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="border-style: none solid solid; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 73.25pt;" valign="top" width="98"> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">6 Pragmatic<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 151.75pt;" valign="top" width="202"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Contextual knowledge.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 149.4pt;" valign="top" width="199"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Significance of the information.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style="height: 29pt;"> <td style="border-style: none solid solid; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 73.25pt; height: 29pt;" valign="top" width="98"> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">5 Semantic<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 151.75pt; height: 29pt;" valign="top" width="202"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Meanings of words (from dictionary)<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 149.4pt; height: 29pt;" valign="top" width="199"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Meaning of the sentence<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="border-style: none solid solid; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 73.25pt;" valign="top" width="98"> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">4 Syntax<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 151.75pt;" valign="top" width="202"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">English grammar <o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 149.4pt;" valign="top" width="199"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Parsed sentence.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="border-style: none solid solid; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 73.25pt;" valign="top" width="98"> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">3 Lexical<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 151.75pt;" valign="top" width="202"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Lexical rules<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 149.4pt;" valign="top" width="199"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Words<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="border-style: none solid solid; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 73.25pt;" valign="top" width="98"> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">2 Coding<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 151.75pt;" valign="top" width="202"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Character coding.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 149.4pt;" valign="top" width="199"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Characters<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="border-style: none solid solid; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 73.25pt;" valign="top" width="98"> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Input<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 151.75pt;" valign="top" width="202"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">n/a<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 149.4pt;" valign="top" width="199"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Bytes<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Now let’s generalise.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Numbers<o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Suppose the message consists of several distinct fields, some textual and some numerical. Then we’ll need to divide the message into fields <i style="">before</i> we apply the character code for text since numbers may use non-text coding. This will be level 1. And we’ll still need level 2 to turn the bytes into numbers. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">There’s no lexical or syntactic level for numbers but we will need to know the semantics. Many numbers are measurements or predictions of measurements and for these we need to know what is measured and the units. We may even need to know how the measurement was made and by whom. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Other numbers are ratings or rankings and this also needs to be known.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Some of this may, of course, be given explicitly by other data items. Taken together this information allows us to convert the number into a sentence of known meaning, eg<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ul style="margin-top: 0cm;" type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">17.63 => The height of the mast is 17.63 m.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">623<span style=""> </span>=> This MP’s expenses were the 623<sup>rd</sup> largest.<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Finally, at the pragmatic level, we add contextual information to see the significance of the information, eg<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ul style="margin-top: 0cm;" type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">The boat is too tall to pass under the bridge.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">This MP is probably honest.<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Image<o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Now suppose that we have fields containing image data. Processing is similar to numbers. The image coding, eg JPEG, is used at level 0 and there is no lexical or syntactic processing. To get the meaning of the image (semantic level) we need to know what sort of image it is, eg an aerial photograph or an X-ray image, its scale and perhaps other details about the equipment and </span><span style="" lang="EN-GB">settings</span><span style="" lang="EN-GB"> used.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Finally, as before, the pragmatic level adds contextual information to let us see the significance of the image.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Composite model</span></u></p><p class="MsoNormal">We can put all this together in a composite model as shown in the table. If necessary the Images column can be generalised to cover the result of any sensing system, eg video, radar images, seismograph output.<br /><u><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></u></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><o:p><span style="text-decoration: none;"> </span></o:p></span></u></p> <table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border: medium none ; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 77.4pt;" valign="top" width="103"> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><br /></td> <td style="border-style: solid solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 99pt;" valign="top" width="132"> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Text<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </td> <td style="border-style: solid solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 99pt;" valign="top" width="132"> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Numbers<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </td> <td style="border-style: solid solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 117pt;" valign="top" width="156"> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Images<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="border-style: none solid solid; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 77.4pt;" valign="top" width="103"> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">6 Pragmatic<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </td> <td colspan="3" style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 315pt;" valign="top" width="420"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Add contextual knowledge to get significance.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td rowspan="2" style="border-style: none solid solid; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 77.4pt;" valign="top" width="103"> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">5 Semantic<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </td> <td colspan="3" style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 315pt;" valign="top" width="420"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Add dictionary knowledge to get meaning.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 99pt;" valign="top" width="132"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">xx<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 99pt;" valign="top" width="132"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">And units.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 117pt;" valign="top" width="156"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">And scale, part of spectrum sensed.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="border-style: none solid solid; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 77.4pt;" valign="top" width="103"> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">4 Syntax<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 99pt;" valign="top" width="132"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Add NL grammar to get a parsed sentence.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 99pt;" valign="top" width="132"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">xx<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 117pt;" valign="top" width="156"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">xx<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="border-style: none solid solid; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 77.4pt;" valign="top" width="103"> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">3 Lexical<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 99pt;" valign="top" width="132"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Add lexical rules to get words<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 99pt;" valign="top" width="132"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">xx<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 117pt;" valign="top" width="156"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">xx<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="border-style: none solid solid; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 77.4pt;" valign="top" width="103"> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">2 Coding<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 99pt;" valign="top" width="132"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Add character coding to get characters.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 99pt;" valign="top" width="132"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Add format rules to get numbers.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 117pt;" valign="top" width="156"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Add format rules to get 2D image.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="border-style: none solid solid; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 77.4pt;" valign="top" width="103"> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">1 Record structure<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> </td> <td colspan="3" style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 315pt;" valign="top" width="420"> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Add record structure knowledge to divide message into fields.<o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="border-style: none solid solid; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 77.4pt;" valign="top" width="103"> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></b></p><br /></td> <td colspan="3" style="border-style: none solid solid none; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 315pt;" valign="top" width="420"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><b style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Bytes</span></b><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">I started by noting the muddle about the words data, information, etc. In fact these words are often used interchangeably and in different ways by people with different backgrounds and interests. IT people, however, should say ‘data’ when we want to discuss bits and bytes and their decoding and processing at lexical and syntactic levels. We should say ‘information’ when discussing the semantics and significance of the data.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>David Flinthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11063189611159076891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2384137317085622668.post-37224337895402275942008-02-12T05:23:00.000-08:002008-02-12T05:33:35.173-08:00Knowledge and pseudo-knowledge<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><b style=""><span lang="EN-GB"></span></b><span lang="EN-GB">It’s often easy to distinguish prejudice from informed opinion. Prejudice is an opinion ‘without visible means of support’ whilst the holder of an informed opinion can back it with arguments and examples. The holder may be part of a professional community with its own journals, models, prizes, etc. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span lang="EN-GB">But is every subject with these features a form of knowledge? It turns out that quite a lot of them are not.<span style=""> </span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span lang="EN-GB">One relatively easy way to determine whether a subject is really knowledge is to ask whether the people practicing it can make valid predictions. By valid I mean that their predictions are correct significantly more than half the time and much more often than the predictions made by non-experts.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span lang="EN-GB">[Some subjects, eg theology, media studies, contain many theories that make no predictions. I have discussed three of these separately.]</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span lang="EN-GB">Pseudo-subjects are rare, possibly unknown, in science and engineering because these subjects have institutionalised methods for testing their theories. They are much commoner in medicine largely because of the power of the placebo effect. For instance, Homeopathy makes predictions about the effects of its treatments. When carefully tested to exclude placebo effects, eg in double-blind clinical trials, these predictions are generally wrong.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span lang="EN-GB">They are commoner still in the subjects that study human activity, eg Politics, Economics and the humanities.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span lang="EN-GB">In </span><i style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">The Black Swan – The Impact of the highly improbable</span></i><span style="" lang="EN-GB"> (<st1:street st="on"><st1:address st="on">Allen Lane</st1:address></st1:Street>, 2007) Nassim Taleb looks at the evidence on the accuracy of predictions made in <span style="color: black;">Security analysis, Political science and Economics. In each case he finds there are few studies but that those that exist show the predictive power of these fields to be poor.</span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><b style=""><span style="color: black;" lang="EN-GB">Security analysis</span></b><span style="color: black;" lang="EN-GB"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="color: black;" lang="EN-GB">Securities are tradeable financial instruments such as shares, options, collateralised loan obligations. The job of the securities analyst is to advise investors which to buy and which to sell.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="color: black;" lang="EN-GB">T Tyszka and P Zielonka (</span><i style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Expert Judgements: Financial analysts versus weather forecasters</span></i><span style="color: black;" lang="EN-GB">. J. of Psychology and Financial Markets, 2002, vol 3(3), p 152-160) found that, compared to weather forecasters, security analysts are worse at predicting but have more faith in their predictions.<span style=""> </span>An analysis communicated by Philippe Bouchard showed that predictions in this area are on average no better than assuming this period will be like the last period, ie worthless.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="color: black;" lang="EN-GB">This is despite the analysts’ extensive knowledge of the firms and sectors they study!<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><b style=""><span lang="EN-GB">Political science<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="color: black;" lang="EN-GB">Philip Tetlock<i style=""> </i>(</span><i style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Expert Political Judgement: How good is it? How can we know?</span></i><span style="color: black;" lang="EN-GB">, Princeton University Press, 2005) asked about 300 supposed experts to judge the likelihood of certain events within the next five years.<span style=""> </span>He collected c27,000 predictions.<span style=""> </span>He found:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 35.7pt; text-indent: -17.85pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; color: black;" lang="EN-GB"><span style="">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: black;" lang="EN-GB">Experts greatly overestimated their accuracy<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 35.7pt; text-indent: -17.85pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; color: black;" lang="EN-GB"><span style="">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: black;" lang="EN-GB">Professors were no better than graduates.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 35.7pt; text-indent: -17.85pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol; color: black;" lang="EN-GB"><span style="">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="color: black;" lang="EN-GB">People with strong reputations were worse predictors than others.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><b style=""><span style="color: black;" lang="EN-GB">Economics<o:p></o:p></span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="color: black;" lang="EN-GB">Taleb found no systematic study of the accuracy of economists’ predictions.<span style=""> </span>Such evidence as exists suggests that they are just slightly better than random. For instance Makriades and Hibon (</span><i style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">The M3-Competition Results</span></i><span style="color: black;" lang="EN-GB">, Int. J. Forecasting, 2000, vol 16, p 451-476) ran competitions comparing more and less sophisticated forecasting methods. They found that sophisticated methods, like econometrics, were no better than very simple ones. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><b style=""><span lang="EN-GB">Common threads</span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span lang="EN-GB">In each case:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 35.7pt; text-indent: -17.85pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol;" lang="EN-GB"><span style="">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB">The experts know a lot more facts than the layman. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 35.7pt; text-indent: -17.85pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol;" lang="EN-GB"><span style="">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB">They also know more theories about their fields.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 35.7pt; text-indent: -17.85pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol;" lang="EN-GB"><span style="">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB">There is little published research about the accuracy of these theories.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 35.7pt; text-indent: -17.85pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol;" lang="EN-GB"><span style="">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB">Supposed experts are not familiar with what little there is.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 35.7pt; text-indent: -17.85pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol;" lang="EN-GB"><span style="">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB">Predictions cluster – experts copy each other.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 35.7pt; text-indent: -17.85pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol;" lang="EN-GB"><span style="">·<span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"> </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span lang="EN-GB">Predictions do not generally cluster around the true value. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="color: black;" lang="EN-GB">These fields may have value as sources of analogies and models. Sometimes even remote analogies and very simple models can be helpful.<br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="color: black;" lang="EN-GB">However, their predictions are generally worthless.</span></p>David Flinthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11063189611159076891noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2384137317085622668.post-51282597410472352462008-02-12T02:35:00.000-08:002008-02-12T05:23:39.003-08:00Theories that make no predictions<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">It’s interesting to look at three subjects (ie sets of facts and theories) that don’t seem to make predictions – and certainly give little thought to either predictions or testing. They are Theology, critical theory and business studies.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Analysis shows surprising parallels between them. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><b><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Theology</span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Theology does not seem to make predictions. Most theology is aligned with a single major religion, or even a denomination or sect, though some ideas are shared. Theology has existed as a discipline for at least 1,500 years and has shown some evolution. However it doesn’t seem to show much progress. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Theology has three fundamental problems:</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 35.7pt; text-indent: -17.85pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style=";font-family:Symbol;font-size:10;" ><span style="">·<span style=";font-family:";font-size:7;" > </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="" lang="EN-GB">There’s doubt as to whether its subject matter – God – actually exists. Even saints and eminent churchmen have expressed doubts on this matter (though not usually in public).</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 35.7pt; text-indent: -17.85pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style=";font-family:Symbol;font-size:10;" ><span style="">·<span style=";font-family:";font-size:7;" > </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="" lang="EN-GB">There’s no agreement as to how theological ideas are to be tested. Ideas may be tested against holy books (but which?), or tradition (which?) or personal revelation (whose?). Without this agreement progress is probably impossible.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 35.7pt; text-indent: -17.85pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style=";font-family:Symbol;font-size:10;" ><span style="">·<span style=";font-family:";font-size:7;" > </span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span style="" lang="EN-GB">The views of scholars can be overruled by the official utterances of religious leaders.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Theology is thus the projection of religious feelings into the realm of reason and morals. There seems no reason to expect that such feelings will be good guides to the nature of reality and thus it should not be judged by its ability to produce predictions. </span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">How it should be judged is another matter – and not one to which I have an answer. However, unless theologians can produce an answer it seems difficult to see why anyone should pay it any attention.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><b><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Critical theory</span></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Critical theory is a collection of theories used by scholars in the humanities. These theories include Marxism, psycho-analysis and post-structuralism. An introduction to critical theory will mention several dozen theories. It’s immediately clear to an interested outsider that this isn’t at root a quest for truth in the sense that the sciences are. For while science has many controversies – and occasional feuds – these eventually get resolved with the successful theories being consolidated into the larger body of science. This hardly happens in critical theory – though some theories have become unfashionable.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">If critical theory is not a quest for truth what is it? Critical theory is, I believe, a form of politics. Its theories reflect, often explicitly, political movements in society. They are the projection of those movements and issues into the analysis of cultural products such as books, films and clothes. Now to the degree that this analysis is right it should not be judged by its ability to produce predictions but by its ability to produce social change. That’s not a judgement that I shall attempt here.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><b style="">Business studies</b></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">I use the term business studies to cover research and analysis published by business schools and management consultancies. There is a great deal of such material and the quality varies greatly. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 35.7pt; text-indent: -17.85pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family:Symbol;"><span style="">·<span style=";font-family:";font-size:7;" > </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Some is rigorously empirical. It treats businesses as phenomena whose behaviour can be studied. This can lead to predictions. The results of testing such predictions are reported VERY occasionally.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 35.7pt; text-indent: -17.85pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family:Symbol;"><span style="">·<span style=";font-family:";font-size:7;" > </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Some of this material is usefully analytical. That is, it dissects a significant business problem in order to identify threats, opportunities and constraints. It can be useful to managers without making predictions.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 35.7pt; text-indent: -17.85pt;"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family:Symbol;"><span style="">·<span style=";font-family:";font-size:7;" > </span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Much, however, is weak. It takes a small number of examples – often selected on no clear basis – and draws conclusions that seem largely subjective. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;">As with theology and critical theory there’s plenty of change but little clear progress. There’s little evidence of an accumulation of agreed facts and theories and little referencing of the work of others. Often the same ideas appear at different times under different names. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;">Furthermore, names are often used by consultancies and research houses as sub-brands and there are real material rewards for consultants and analysts who create names that are adopted by the market. Thus the published material often reflects the competition between business schools, for students, and between consultancies, for clients. (Such competition is not absent in theology and critical theory but it is more marked here.)</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;">If business studies is judged by the volume of valid predictions it performs poorly but many analysts and consultants would say that that is not its main purpose. Its purpose, they would say, is to recommend actions. How, then, should such recommendations be judged? </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;">It is possible – medicine has the same purpose. Recommendations should be judged by their outcomes. This, however, is typically very difficult. The number of companies adopting any given recommendation may be small – and they may be taking other initiatives in parallel. And they may well treat all their initiatives as confidential.</p>David Flinthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11063189611159076891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2384137317085622668.post-52740645944411144132008-01-18T07:35:00.001-08:002008-01-18T07:37:06.717-08:00Why knowledge is NOT “justified true belief”<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">In </span><span style=""><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theaetetus_%28dialogue%29" title="Theaetetus (dialogue)">Theaetetus</a></span>, Plato’s <span style="color: black;"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates" title="Socrates"><span style="color: black; text-decoration: none;">Socrates</span></a></span> argues that knowledge is <span style="" lang="EN-GB">“justified true belief”.<span style=""> </span>That is, it is, a belief for which the believer has a justification and that is, in fact, true (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology). This doesn’t really work.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Firstly defining knowledge as belief excludes tacit knowledge, such knowing how to ride a bicycle. My ability to ride a bicycle does not depend upon my having any particular beliefs about riding or, indeed, bicycles. So Socrates’ definition can only apply to explicit knowledge.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal">To see why it doesn’t even work for explicit knowledge consider the following truth table for beliefs.</p> <table class="MsoTableGrid" style="border: medium none ; border-collapse: collapse;" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"> <tbody><tr style=""> <td style="border: 1pt solid windowtext; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 140.4pt;" valign="top" width="187"> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> </td> <td style="border-style: solid solid solid none; border-color: windowtext windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 45pt;" valign="top" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center">1</p> </td> <td style="border-style: solid solid solid none; border-color: windowtext windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 45pt;" valign="top" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center">2</p> </td> <td style="border-style: solid solid solid none; border-color: windowtext windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 45pt;" valign="top" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center">3</p> </td> <td style="border-style: solid solid solid none; border-color: windowtext windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: 1pt 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 45pt;" valign="top" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center">4</p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 140.4pt;" valign="top" width="187"> <p class="MsoNormal">Is the belief justified?</p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 45pt;" valign="top" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center">Y</p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 45pt;" valign="top" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center">Y</p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 45pt;" valign="top" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center">N</p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 45pt;" valign="top" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center">N</p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 140.4pt;" valign="top" width="187"> <p class="MsoNormal">Is the belief true?</p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 45pt;" valign="top" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center">Y</p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 45pt;" valign="top" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center">N</p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 45pt;" valign="top" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center">Y</p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 45pt;" valign="top" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center">N</p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 140.4pt;" valign="top" width="187"> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 45pt;" valign="top" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><o:p> </o:p></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 45pt;" valign="top" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><o:p> </o:p></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 45pt;" valign="top" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><o:p> </o:p></p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 45pt;" valign="top" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center"><o:p> </o:p></p> </td> </tr> <tr style=""> <td style="border-style: none solid solid; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 140.4pt;" valign="top" width="187"> <p class="MsoNormal">Does it meet Socrates’ definition?</p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 45pt;" valign="top" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center">Y</p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 45pt;" valign="top" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center">N</p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 45pt;" valign="top" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center">N</p> </td> <td style="border-style: none solid solid none; border-color: -moz-use-text-color windowtext windowtext -moz-use-text-color; border-width: medium 1pt 1pt medium; padding: 0cm 5.4pt; width: 45pt;" valign="top" width="60"> <p class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: center;" align="center">N</p> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <p class="MsoNormal"><u>Justification:</u> I agree with Socrates in wanting to distinguish knowledge from mere guesswork. To count as knowledge a belief needs to be justified. Suppose you believe that <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Hungary</st1:place></st1:country-region> is an attractive market for your latest product. This is a justified belief if you can produce evidence for it. I would accept market research and the success of similar products as sufficient evidence so if you have that data I’ll accept your belief as justified. I’m prepared to agree that a belief is justified even if the evidence is not conclusive, as it won’t be in this case until you’ve tried to sell it in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Hungary</st1:place></st1:country-region>.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><u>Truth:</u><span style=""> </span>The problem comes in distinguishing cases 1 and 2 in the table. Is your belief about the Hungarian market true?<span style=""> </span>The only way that I can know this is to wait for the results of your Hungarian launch. And if you never launch your product in <st1:country-region st="on"><st1:place st="on">Hungary</st1:place></st1:country-region> then neither of us will ever know if your belief was true – and therefore knowledge. This is inconvenient but not absurd.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">How about the market research? Is <u>that</u> knowledge, ie is the data you have accurate and appropriate? You believe so and you have reasons for doing so, eg that you used a reputable firm with experience of the Hungarian market.<span style=""> </span>You certainly have a justified belief.<span style=""> </span>But can you know that it’s true?<span style=""> </span>You cannot be certain, so this, also, does not meet Socrates’ definition of knowledge.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style="">Not truth but confidence<o:p></o:p></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal">The reality here is that beliefs can be held varying degrees of confidence. We can rarely be certain but are often, justifiably, confident. And we determine the proper degree of confidence using just those arguments that constitute the justification for the belief.<b style=""><o:p></o:p></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal">So knowledge, I suggest, is those beliefs where the arguments and evidence in<span style="" lang="EN-GB"> favour</span> make them seem more likely than not. Beliefs where the arguments and evidence in favour fall short of that are<span style=""> <span lang="EN-GB">rumours</span></span>, opinions or<span style="" lang="EN-GB"> prejudices</span>. </p> <p class="MsoNormal">This view has two immediate consequences:</p> <ul style="margin-top: 0cm;" type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style="">In applying knowledge we should consider how sure we are of its truth.<span style=""> </span>We should not claim certainty where the evidence is doubtful.</li><li class="MsoNormal" style="">Systems that store knowledge should include assessments of reliability and/or pointers to the sources of the supposed knowledge.</li></ul>David Flinthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11063189611159076891noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2384137317085622668.post-54477142821180163262008-01-17T15:08:00.000-08:002008-01-17T15:11:34.161-08:00Now ‘models’ are replacing ‘views’<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;">Think about accounts. All businesses have to produce financial accounts for their auditors, shareholders and regulators. Back in the bad old days of BC – Before Computers – those were often the only accounts produced. Now, of course, almost every business also produces a variety of routine management accounts plus ad hoc analyses as needed.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;">These are possible both because we have computers to do the work and because we keep lots of financial data in databases.<span style=""> </span>This data constitutes a model of the business (see my post on <b style="">Types of Model</b>). To the degree that it’s a good model all the required accounts can be derived from it.<span style=""> </span>The accounts are views of the model and there are an unlimited number of valid views.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;">This change from creating a few predefined views to creating a model is not restricted to accounting. In fact it’s pretty general.</p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;"><b style="">The trend to model building</b><br />In the past when people wanted to communicate a design or understand a thing or process they created a view of the thing or process. These views included maps, accounts and blueprints and required special materials, tools and skills. Usually sets of these were needed to define a territory, business or design and it was difficult to keep them in <span class="hm">synch</span>. Each kind of view was defined by a list of allowed elements or features (a meta-model); other elements and features being either ignored or indicated by annotations.<br /><br />Now an organization is increasingly likely to build a digital model of the thing of interest from which it can derive any number of views. The model is also defined by a list of allowed elements or features but a longer list than for any view. From the model we can produce both familiar and novel views and there is no synchronization problem. </p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;">Examples include:<b style=""><o:p></o:p></b></p> <ul><li><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Symbol;"><span style=""><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"></span></span></span><!--[endif]-->Maps: <span style="" lang="EN-GB">Many maps are possible for any territory. For instance they may show or omit roads, railways, and contours. Nautical charts show almost nothing on land but a great deal about the sea. </span><span class="hm">Ordance</span> Survey has digitised its map data and derives actual maps from this resource. Many companies now have Geographical Information Systems that allow them to combine their own data with that available publicly. </li><li><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Symbol;"><span style=""><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"></span></span></span>Accounts: Databases of assets and transactions support many kinds of financial and management accounts.</li><li><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Symbol;"><span style=""><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"></span></span></span>Engineering design: Traditionally engineers produced plans, front and side elevations and cross-sections. CAD models can yield both blueprints and lists of parts and jobs.</li><li><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size: 10pt; font-family: Symbol;"><span style=""><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"></span></span></span>Building design: Construct IT at <st1:place st="on"><st1:placename st="on"><span class="hm">Salford</span></st1:PlaceName> <st1:placetype st="on">Univ.</st1:PlaceType></st1:place> has proposed that building projects should be based on a shared database that fully defines the building.</li></ul> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-top: 12pt;">Being digital these models support many kinds of analysis and processing that were either impossible or very expensive when only views were available, <span class="hm">eg</span> calculations of load, simulation of performance or experience.</p> <ul><li><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol;"><span style=""><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"></span></span></span>Civil engineers can show what their constructions will look like when complete.</li><li><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-family: Symbol;"><span style=""><span style="font-family: "Times New Roman"; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; font-size: 7pt; line-height: normal; font-size-adjust: none; font-stretch: normal;"></span></span></span>Aeronautical engineers can simulate airflow and thus calculate performance and fuel efficiency.</li></ul> <p class="MsoNormal"><b style="">Back to accounting<o:p></o:p></b></p> <p class="MsoNormal">However, most accounting ‘models’ are not good enough to simulate the consequences of changes in processes or trading conditions.<span style=""> </span>Some organizations have built good enough models but not, generally, as part of their accounts. <br /> <!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br /> <!--[endif]--></p>David Flinthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11063189611159076891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2384137317085622668.post-56466723596555140732008-01-17T05:56:00.000-08:002008-01-21T10:02:52.417-08:00Types of model<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;font-family:times new roman;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">In <b style="">The Starting Point</b>, my first post on this blog, I argued that “(B) </span><span style="font-size:100%;">Much knowledge can be seen as … models.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">”<span style=""> </span>That’s obvious to some degree but it raises the question of what constitutes a model.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;font-family:times new roman;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">There are at least four kinds of model:<span style=""> </span>Structural, taxonomic, developmental and causal.<span style=""> </span>There are also metamodels.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;font-family:times new roman;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">In <b style="">The Starting</b> <b style="">Point</b> I argued that “(A)</span><span style="font-size:100%;"> Knowledge is most interesting and important where it is general.”</span><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">Some models are very general.<span style=""> </span>Thus most fundamental models in physics can apply anywhere in the universe.<span style=""> </span>Some are entirely specific, eg the UK Treasury’s model of the <st1:country-region st="on">UK</st1:country-region> economy applies only to the <st1:place st="on"><st1:country-region st="on">UK</st1:country-region></st1:place> and probably for only a few years.<span style=""> </span>For now I only note this distinction.<span style=""> </span>It may be desirable to formalise it at some future point.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><u><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Structural models<o:p></o:p></span></u></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;font-family:times new roman;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">Structural models show the structure of an actual or proposed object.<span style=""> </span>They may be physical or virtual.<span style=""> </span>Structural models are used in many areas including medicine, chemistry and the various kinds of engineering.<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;font-family:times new roman;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">Doctors have created generic models of the body’s skeleton, nerves, blood vessels, etc. which are used in medical education and to guide surgery. In sensitive cases exploratory operations and non-invasive scans (using X-rays, ultrasound or MRI) are used to create models of an individual patient’s body. Another recent advance has been the construction of full-size <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;font-family:times new roman;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">Chemists have long used structural models of molecules to help them reason about their properties and reactions. For many years they were drawn on paper or built using rods and balls but now they are increasingly likely to be electronic. Electronic models allow calculation of, eg, molecular shapes.<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;font-family:times new roman;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">Engineers used to rely on drawings to communicate their designs to clients and those who have to build them.<span style=""> </span>They increasingly use 3D models which also support design work and construction.<span style=""> </span>During design they enable stress calculations, simulation of performance, compatibility, etc. They may generate lists of required materials, work allocations and control data for numerically-controlled tools.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><u><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Taxonomic models<o:p></o:p></span></u></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;font-family:times new roman;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">A taxonomic model is a set of categories with allocation rules.<span style=""> </span>These rules are usually text for use by a human classifier but may be executable.<span style=""> </span>Thus, </span><span style="font-size:100%;">in 1999 the BBC automated the allocation of incoming news reports to its own 5,000 news categories. Journalists use these categories to select the reports they need.</span><span style="font-size:100%;"> </span><span style="font-size:100%;">The system, News On-line (NEON), replaced the people who had previously done this job.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;font-family:times new roman;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">Some taxonomies are very simple.<span style=""> </span>For instance, the states of matter are solid, liquid, gas and plasma. These are often stable.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:times new roman;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">Others are very large and may evolve continuously. </span><span style="font-size:100%;">Well-known large-scale taxonomies include:</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <ul style="margin-top: 0cm;font-family:times new roman;" type="disc"><li class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:100%;">In science, </span><span class="mw-headline" style="font-size:100%;">the Periodic Table of the Chemical elements and the Linnaean taxonomy of living things.</span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:100%;">In business, </span><span class="mw-headline" style="font-size:100%;">Standard Industry codes (SIC), the UN Product Classification, the Yellow pages categories.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style=""><span class="mw-headline" style="font-size:100%;">In marketing, the Mosaic set of consumer profiles.<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;"><span class="mw-headline" style="font-size:100%;">In information retrieval, the </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">Dewey decimal system</span><span class="mw-headline" style="font-size:100%;"> and the Yahoo ontology.</span></li></ul> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:times new roman;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">We sometimes find that a causal model underlies a taxonomy, eg, blood groups.<span style=""> </span>Sometimes this is known first; sometimes only later. Thus:<o:p></o:p></span></p> <ul style="font-family:times new roman;"><li><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">The distinctness of the chemical elements reflects the quantum mechanics of atomic nuclei.</span></li><li><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">The</span><span class="mw-headline" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: normal;"> Linnaean taxonomy reflects the evolution of living things – a phenomenon that was not understood in Linnaeus’ time.<br /></span></span></li><li><span class="mw-headline" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">The </span></span><span class="mw-headline" style="font-size:100%;"><span style="font-weight: normal;">Mosaic profiles reflect people’s lifestyle choices and resources</span></span> <span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;"> <o:p></o:p></span></li></ul> <h2 style="margin-bottom: 12pt;font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-family: times new roman; font-weight: bold;font-size:100%;" class="mw-headline" ><span style="font-weight: normal;">This also applies to sub-ato</span></span><span style="font-family: times new roman; font-weight: normal;font-size:100%;" class="mw-headline" ><span style="font-weight: normal;">mic particles and blood groups but not (so far) to genres or Standard Industry codes (SIC), the </span></span><span style="font-family: times new roman; font-weight: normal;font-size:100%;" lang="EN-GB" >Dewey decimal system</span><span style="font-family: times new roman; font-weight: normal;font-size:100%;" class="mw-headline" ><span style="font-weight: normal;"> or the Y</span></span><span style="font-family: times new roman; font-weight: bold;font-size:100%;" class="mw-headline" ><span style="font-weight: normal;">ahoo ontology.</span></span><span style="font-weight: normal;font-size:100%;" ><o:p></o:p></span></h2> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><u><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Developmental models</span></u></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;font-family:times new roman;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">A developmental model asserts that its subject, eg an organism or a market, must pass through a series of stages.<span style=""> </span>There are many stages models.<span style=""> </span>Amongst the best-known are those developed by Piaget in the area of child development. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="font-family:times new roman;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">A well-known business example is Geoffrey Moore’s market development model: <o:p></o:p></span></p> <ul style="font-family:times new roman;"><li><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:100%;">Innovators<o:p></o:p></span></li><li><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:100%;">Early adopters<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style=""><span style="font-size:100%;"><i style=""><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Chasm<o:p></o:p></span></i></span></li><li><!--[if !supportLists]--><span style="font-size:100%;">Early Majority <o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">Late Majority<o:p></o:p></span></li><li class="MsoNormal" style=""><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">Laggards<o:p></o:p></span></li></ul> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;font-family:times new roman;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">(See Crossing the chasm by </span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">Geoffrey Moore</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">).<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;font-family:times new roman;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">Like a taxonomy a developmental model may be based on a causal model or may be purely empirical.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><u><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Causal models<o:p></o:p></span></u></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;font-family:times new roman;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">Causal models show how events lead to consequences.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;font-family:times new roman;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">The most basic causal models are purely indicative – little more than a list of factors that predispose to a result.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;font-family:times new roman;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">At the next step up are empirical models.<span style=""> </span>These models produce forecasts by extrapolating from previous experience.<span style=""> </span>Many economic and financial planning models are of this kind.<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;font-family:times new roman;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">The best causal models are mathematical and allow quantitative prediction of consequences.<span style=""> </span>They may be tacit or explicit.<span style=""> </span>Tacit causal models may be no more than correlations.<span style=""> </span>Explicit causal models, eg Newtonian mechanics, include explanations.<span style=""> </span><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;font-family:times new roman;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">Some models are hybrid.<span style=""> </span>Typically they use theory-based formulae where they are available and empirical formulae elsewhere.<span style=""> </span></span><span style="font-size:100%;">The Dupuy Insitute's Tactical Numerical Deterministic Model (see separate posting) appears to be a hybrid.</span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;font-family:times new roman;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">A causal model requires a taxonomy as foundation. That is, the entities in the model must be clearly defined.<span style=""> </span>Sometimes the taxonomy predates the causal model but some causal models, probably including the most significant ones, require some revision of the taxonomy. <o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;font-family:times new roman;"><span style="font-size:100%;"><u><span style="" lang="EN-GB">Metamodels</span></u></span><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;"><o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;font-family:times new roman;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">A metamodel is a general model that says, for one or more specific models, which features are significant and, sometimes, how they are represented.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;font-family:times new roman;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">Suppose a database contains a digital model of a gearbox.<span style=""> </span>Underlying the database is a schema, an executable digital listing of the kinds of data items and relationships used to store that model.<span style=""> </span>This schema is the metamodel for the gearbox model and would be equally applicable to other gearboxes and, probably, to a wide range of engineered structures.<o:p></o:p></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom: 12pt;font-family:times new roman;"><span lang="EN-GB" style="font-size:100%;">In principle there are metametamodels – but these are only needed by, for instance, people designing new database and knowledge management systems.<o:p></o:p></span></p>David Flinthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11063189611159076891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2384137317085622668.post-18868351081054014842008-01-15T01:01:00.000-08:002008-01-15T01:17:52.758-08:00TNDM: A predictive model for warfare<p class="MsoNormal">The <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">Dupuy</span> <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">Institute's</span> Tactical Numerical Deterministic Model (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">TNDM</span>) (<span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Palatino Linotype"; color: blue;">Economist. </span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Palatino Linotype"; color: blue;">Technology Quarterly; 17 Sept 05</span><span style="font-size: 11pt; font-family: "Palatino Linotype"; color: blue;"><o:p></o:p></span>) is a forecasting system with an excellent track record in forecasting the durations and casualties in armed conflicts. The Institute has a database of raw information on which its analysts perform extensive statistical analysis to identify patterns and trends.<span style=""> </span><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">TNDM</span> is available commercially (for $93,000 in 2005) and has been bought by both governments and arms suppliers. The Swedish government uses <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">TNDM</span> to propose new kinds of weapons.<span style=""> <br /></span></p><p class="MsoNormal">The model includes many factors some technical, eg types and characteristics of weapons and armour, some geographical, eg presence of rivers, some tactical, eg disposition of troops, some logistical and even the matter of morale.<br /></p><p class="MsoNormal"><br /><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">TNDM</span> is generally more accurate than other 'war forecasting' systems because:</p><ul><li>It's based on real data<br /></li><li>It's model is based rigorous analysis rather than the wishful thinking of arms manufacturers and military organisations.</li><li>It's model has been repeatedly tested against actual experience.</li></ul>The success of <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">TNDM</span> is significant because it deals with human behaviour (which is sometimes claimed to be wholly unpredictable) and because it shows the success of empirical, 'scientific' method in an area remote from the physical sciences.<br /><br /><p class="MsoNormal"></p>David Flinthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11063189611159076891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2384137317085622668.post-22654381865277439852008-01-01T13:59:00.000-08:002008-01-02T07:29:37.316-08:00Machines and tacit knowledgeThe knowledge management (KM) literature distinguishes between tacit and explicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is the knowledge you can state. You can answer questions on it (so public examinations and pub <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_0">quizes</span></span> are both tests of explicit knowledge).<br /><br />Tacit knowledge is the knowledge you have that you can't state. The usual example is riding a bicycle. Although I can do it I can't explain how I do it - or not in a way that will help you to learn to do it.<br /><br />Similarly, many professionals have skills that can be seen as examples of tacit knowledge. For instance, the best sales staff can choose the right approach to each customer. The best writers can choose the best way to make each point. The best negotiators adopt the right tactics in each negotiation. The figure shows a few examples. (Method for human-powered flight is shown as passive because I don't have the required muscles for it.)<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-piUsxKbtZg/R3uoviPNq0I/AAAAAAAAAAk/Hc_msN7Mx9E/s1600-h/NoK+2c.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_-piUsxKbtZg/R3uoviPNq0I/AAAAAAAAAAk/Hc_msN7Mx9E/s320/NoK+2c.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5150896133426228034" border="0" /></a>In each case the best practitioners outperform the others on objective measures. Their tacit knowledge has real business value for them and their employers.<br /><br />This distinction matters because tacit and executable knowledge must generally be taught in different ways. Insofar as tacit knowledge can be taught at all it's taught through experience rather than lectures.<br /><br />Most KM experts assume that this distinction is only relevant to human knowledge. All other knowledge, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_1">eg</span></span> that in books, is explicit. Underlying this assumption is the further assumption that all non-human forms of knowledge are passive. That is, they can only be put to work by a person who must first make the knowledge their own.<br /><br />Both these assumptions are wrong.<br /><br />Knowledge can be embodied in things and machines in several ways and in some of these it can be applied by the machine. The next figure shows the possibilities.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-piUsxKbtZg/R3usdyPNq3I/AAAAAAAAAA8/xcg1A_18VvM/s1600-h/NoK+2b.JPG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_-piUsxKbtZg/R3usdyPNq3I/AAAAAAAAAA8/xcg1A_18VvM/s320/NoK+2b.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5150900226530061170" border="0" /></a><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Jigs and machine tools</span><br />A jig (when not an Irish <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_2">folkdance</span></span>)is a template or guide used to ease the making of multiple items to the same design. The jig thus embodies part of the design. In the <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_3">pre</span></span>-industrial age jigs were made by craftsmen for their own use but industrialisation led to specialisation and the making of jigs by craftsmen for use by less-skilled workers. The jig therefore replaced part of the workers' knowledge.<br /><br />During the 20<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_4">th</span></span> century more and more of the workers' skill was replaced by machines. Jigs and semi-automatic machines were succeeded by numerically-controlled machine tools and robots. In most cases the tools and robots do not contain the design of the thing being made in an explicit form; you can't answer questions about the design by inspecting the controlling programs - or not easily. But they do contain it tacitly.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Programs</span><br />Many programs can perform tasks which, if done by a person, would require knowledge. Consider the setting of the premium for motor insurance. After you have input your details, mileage, motoring convictions and so forth to a website the insurance company runs a program which calculates a premium.<br /><br />The formula used to calculate the premium is clearly present in the program and can be extracted by study. (In practice the amount of study needed may be very great. Cases in which it has proved too great for the programmers attempting the task are far from unknown.)<br /><br />Before such programs existed premiums were decided by underwriters, who applied their skill and knowledge, or by clerks who applied <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">formulae supplied</span> by underwriters. Today's programs stand in the same relation to the underwriters as the clerks of yesteryear. They contain explicit knowledge and are active (<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_5">ie</span></span> executable).<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Artificial neural networks</span><br />Artificial neural networks (ANN) are combinations of programs and data that mimic very simple brains. Unlike ordinary <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7">programs <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_6">ANNs</span></span> must be <span style="font-style: italic;">taught </span>by being trained repeatedly on large sets of data. They can be taught to perform a variety of tasks including some,<span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_7"> eg</span></span> risk assessment, that are valuable in business. Once they have been taught they can perform these tasks reliably.<br /><br />However, the knowledge that appears to be being used by an ANN cannot be found within it. This knowledge is therefore executable and tacit.<br /><br />Calling this knowledge tacit is more than an analogy. <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_8">ANNs</span></span> work best on tasks for which humans also need tacit knowledge, <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_9">eg</span></span> bicycle riding. These are tasks on which people cannot be instructed and computers cannot readily be programmed. People and <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11"><span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_10">ANNs</span></span> <span style="font-style: italic;">learn </span>these tasks by repeated trials. There are good reasons to think that brains do work somewhat <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_12">like <span class="blsp-spelling-error" id="SPELLING_ERROR_11">ANNs</span></span> when learning these tasks.David Flinthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11063189611159076891noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2384137317085622668.post-26863273701432439362007-12-29T23:46:00.000-08:002008-01-01T12:03:07.747-08:00The starting pointI've been thinking about knowledge and knowledge management intermittently for over ten years. As a computer and management consultant I started from the need to manage information and knowledge in organisations and from Peter Drucker's insight that 'knowledge work' was becoming central to the economy.<br /><br />I believe there's a disconnect between the two. By knowledge work Drucker meant, roughly, work done by people with formal education at or above degree level. But most of what's written about 'knowledge management' (KM) has nothing to say about the kind of knowledge that is learnt in gaining a degree. I don't say that the KM literature is worthless - only that it's incomplete in an important respect.<br /><br />My own thinking started from a definition and two propositions.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">My definition</span><br /><br />Knowledge is assertions that are based on evidence. Assertions don't become knowledge because they are widely believed or found in textbooks (or holy books) or endorsed by authority (whether political, organisational or religious) but because they are supported by logic and observation.<br /><br />Notice that this is NOT the same as defining knowledge as "justified true belief". Truth is not part of my definition because it cannot be definitively known.<br /><br />Scientific knowledge is the form of knowledge that most clearly exemplifies my definition and it's reasonable to seek illumination from the philosophy and practice of science. There is, of course, knowledge in other areas, eg history, marketing and business management.<br /><br />Of course my definition begs the question as to how much evidence is needed to to convert an assertion into knowledge. I confess that I do not (yet) have an answer to this question of which I'm confident. My best current answer is to replace the opinion/knowledge dichotomy with a scale which has prejudice at one end and established knowledge at the other. This would be consistent with Russell's advice to 'give to each proposition that degree of belief justified by the evidence'.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Two propositions</span><br /><br />A) Knowledge is most interesting and important where it is general. Thus Newton's laws of motion are more important than the orbital parameters of any one planet. And an effective customer segmentation scheme is more important than any one customer's spending pattern.<br /><br />B) Much knowledge can be seen as a model of the domain concerned. Newton's laws of motion are a mathematical model and a great deal of science can be seen as models of various kinds.<br /><br />Models, generally less precise and mathematical, are also common in management science and marketing. <br /><br />Some knowledge, and this is especially true of tacit knowledge, is probably not models; it's certainly not explicit models. I'll return to this point in subsequent posts.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Implications</span><br />The processes of knowledge creation and verification are important parts of knowledge management. It's useful to see them as model building and testing.David Flinthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11063189611159076891noreply@blogger.com2