| [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | Indexes: Main | Date | Thread | Author |
It is commonly agreed that we either know something, or we do not. In reality however we have both: at the same time we may know something and yet we cannot state that we (fully) understand its meaning (e.g. the meaning of tool and system, as well as, their differences in context). How is this possible?
I remember that John McCarthy raised a similar question at Stanford University last year. The problem becomes especially clear when we are using computers which are tools inasmuch as their `rules' are (formally) defined. How are the rules of a non-formal system defined? If formally, then such a system must be a tool; if not formally, then those `rules' may not be said defined (I assume that any definition is based on facts and principles agreed on, which could be stated explicitly hence also formally).
Best regards,
Janos Sarbo
Gary Richmond wrote:
------cut here------On 6/26 Jun 2002, Aldo de Moor wrote in response to comments by Phillipe Martin:It is apparently all too easy to forget the important distinction you made between TOOL and SYSTEM (in response to a comment on your paper by Janos Sarbo). The pragmatic principle and related notions like Doug Engelbart's of "improving on improvement" essentially require consideration at the meta-level. Peirce's pragmatism is, of course, not a tool, but a theory within the methodological part of his logic, "the highest and most living branch of logic." CP 2.333 (which at one point he interestingly refers to as "transuasional logic"). There seems a tendency to conflate the two, often reducing everything to tools and their use; or alternatively, finding this, and the other distinctions you made, mere "common knowledge" (though, of course, common knowledge itself needs to be criticized in a thorough-going pragmatism), rather than to see reflection at this level essential to the growth of collaborative communities.The complexity of socio-technical system evolution is such that methodological support is essential. Most methodologies, e.g. in knowledge and requirements engineering, focus on the lowest levels (information system, usage context).