The relationship between human perception and knowledge organization (original) (raw)
Related papers
Theories of knowledge organization — theories of knowledge
Any ontological theory commits us to accept and classify a number of phenomena in a more or less specific way – and vice versa: a classification tends to reveal the theoretical outlook of its creator. Objects and their descriptions and relations are not just “given” but determined by theories. Knowledge is fallible and consensus is rare. By implication, knowledge organization has to consider different theories/views and their foundations. Bibliographical classifications depend on subject knowledge and on the same theories as corresponding scientific and scholarly classifications. Some classifications are based on logical distinctions, others on empirical examinations, and some on mappings of common ancestors or on establishing functional criteria. To evaluate a classification is to involve oneself in the research which has produced the given classification. Because research is always based more or less on specific epistemological ideals (e.g. empiricism, rationalism, historicism or pragmatism), the evaluation of classification includes the evaluation of the epistemological foundations of the research on which given classifications have been based. The field of knowledge organization itself is based on different approaches and traditions such as user-based and cognitive views, facet-analytical views, numeric taxonomic approaches, bibliometrics and domain-analytic approaches. These approaches and traditions are again connected to epistemological views, which have to be considered. Only the domain-analytic view is fully committed to exploring knowledge organization in the light of subject knowledge and substantial scholarly theories.
Knowledge Organization at the Interface, 2020
Knowledge Organization (KO) has a historically established construction based on a concept theory according to the Aristotelian model. It is from the Organon that the primary theoretical basis of documentary-language thinking is established. One can identify the construction of conceptual thinking in classical approaches such as Ranganathan's classification theory. More directly, Dahlberg's theory of concept proves the demarcating point of view of the Aristotelian foundation in KO. However, even in such approaches as Ranganathan's, one can also identify another theoretical tradition in classification theory concerned with constructing a nonconceptual approach. It is from Emanuele Tesauro that we can conceive a non-conceptual theory, establishing a given conceit theory. This research aims to point out the dichotomies and correlations between a concept theory and a non-conceptual one in KO. The research method is theoretical, structured from the perspective of a historical epistemology with a pragmatic background. At first, the historical-theoretical place of concept theory in the KO is determined. Later, the foundation of a non-conceptual theory (or conceit theory) is identified. Furthermore, the relationship between theories in historical and contemporary development in the classification theory is discussed. From the Aristotelian categories, one can understand a method for the relationship between signifier, meaning, and referent, and establish the associations of meaning between terms. The non-conceptuality theory can be historically identified in Emanuele Tesauro. From his Categorical Index, published in the Cannocchiale aristotelico, the condition of concept (and no-concept) is the apex of a variety of chain of rhetorical being, and it points to the creation and progressive unfolding of language figures (conceit elements). According to the French philosopher, Barbara Cassin, the theory of non-conceptuality lays the foundation or logology perspective for a semiotic-semiological-pragmatic focus and encounters the later Wittgenstein, Michel Foucault, and symbolic and poststructuralist approaches. Coincidentally, sources such as Bernd Frohmann, Søren Brier, and Hope Olson will devote themselves to the study of these philosophers to re-discuss the KO. The results lead us to the discussion of different ontological distinctions of language in the tradition of research in KO, as well as the possibilities of critical-social construction of a non-conceptual perspective. The conclusions point to the common origin of the Aristotelian nature of conceptual thinking and non-conceptual thinking.
Knowledge-sociological and information-sociological aspects of knowledge organization (1)
2013
years ago knowledge organization, the develop- ment of scientific concepts and arrangements, has been seen as a logical and thus universal problem. Older approaches accordingly see areas of knowledge as naturally given and organically grown. At latest with the constructivism has entered a 'turn', which sees knowledge organization as a social con- vention and accordingly regards universal standards skeptical. Simultaneously in the sciences came up a stronger concern with historical and sociological stud- ies of its foundations and in philosophy of science the return to different kinds of relativizations has gained more importance. In this paper, some single classical sociological positions are discussed, conclusions are drawn for knowledge and information as well as for science and knowledge organization and objections are designated.
The structure of concept and its connection to sciences
Nuevas Perspectivas Para La Difusion Y Organizacion Del Conocimiento Actas Del Congreso Vol 1 2009 Isbn 978 84 8363 397 7 Pags 372 378, 2009
This paper aims to explore the possibilities of Interdisciplinarity in knowledge organization field as approaches of epistemology. My purpose is to find some examples what give some new advances of the Concept. I will point the connection of Concept to the different sciences in second part of my work. This paper examines some traditional approaches of the Concept (Carnap, Church, Wittgenstein, Horwich, Dahlberg, etc.) and its circumstances on the basis of different sciences (Philosophy, Epistemology, Psychology, Physics, Semantics, etc.). I would like to conclude at the first step: one of the fundamental conceptions of Knowledge Organization, the Concept itself is cross-science, a multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary phenomenon.
Organization, Management and Engineering of Knowledge
Knowledge Organization is a discipline that has its origin in the library field and was extended by new documentation and information tasks. Thought it claimes to encompass all kinds and aspects of knowledge storage and retrieval it is bound more or less to the idea to express the structure of knowledge which is behind a scientific collection of objects and their descriptions. Its aim is to facilitate the exchange between scientists and their knowledge. Knowledge Management instead deals with the elicitation, processing and diffusion of economically important information. Knowlege gets here the main notion of competitive intelligence for a limited target and community. Knowledge Engineering is the technique of making cognitive units and links machine readable and processable. It achieves its advantage over human interaction and understanding with the growth of the data bases and the speed of numerical based decisions. Though rather surprising information mining might be possible by Knowledge Engineering a qualitative or ethical inference remains nearly unsolved. If one contrasts Knowledge Organization, Knowledge Management and Knowledge Engineering to each other these knowledge disciplines get a clearer shape and their special claims, contributions and limitations have to be taken into account. On the other hand it becomes obvious that facing the typical problems and solutions of all knowledge disciplines will result in better outcome in each. Thus practical solutions will always have to take into account these three aspects of knowledge and even more.
Knowledge and Knowledge Structure
Indian Journal of Analytic Philosophy, Vol.3, No.2, 2010
Epistemology in recent times has been discussed with reference to certain concepts like representation, content, meaning, interpretation, identification, understanding, etc. The significance of these concepts lies in the process of unfolding the structure of knowledge. This epistemic structure is intentionally formed. That is to say, Intentionality provides the basic form to knowledge structure, which can be explicated by showing the double levels of its function.
Epistemology as a Philosophical Basis for Knowledge Organization Conceptions
Knowledge Organization for a Sustainable World: Challenges and Perspectives for Cultural, Scientific, and Technological Sharing in a Connected Society, 2016
This paper presents an analysis of Popper's ideas on knowledge organization systems with an emphasis on the foundations of critical-rationalist epistemology, particularly objective knowledge. Knowledge Organization as a field of study is concerned with the processes and knowledge organization systems aimed to develop more qualitative proposals to other fields of knowledge. Knowledge organization systems are representations of structures whose contents, organized in controlled vocabularies of terms, represent concepts. The function of concept organization and representation is the most important characteristic of these systems that relates them to Popper's objective knowledge theory. The knowledge organization system and Popper's objective knowledge, shown in his Table of Ideas, and the relationship between concepts and theory formulation are analyzed. The results demonstrate that epistemological aspects can be applied to knowledge organization systems. It can be concluded that analyses of Popper's objective knowledge and Epistemology in general provide further development of theoretical issues in knowledge organization. Introduction: some concerns and epistemological research Knowledge Organization (KO) as a human activity is linked to cognition in social, professional, and intellectual actions and is part of the daily life of every person. In the same way, knowledge areas, such as Chemistry, Physics, Biology, etc., have a continuous development and, for this reason, they must be systematized and organized by creating specific terminologies and using taxonomies to meet their needs. These ideas encourage thinking about some theoretical approaches between KO and Epistemology. The first one comes from the Theory of Knowledge, the most remote origin of KO since the Ancient Times (Hjørland, 1994, Barité, 2001), although its institution as a field of knowledge only occurred when the International Society for Knowledge Organization (ISKO) was founded. Another epistemic approach is the conceptual one, pointed out by Dahlberg (2006), who considers KO as a new science formed by a huge set of concepts and that it complies with the anthropological and propositional concepts of Alwin Diemer's science (1970 and 1975). More than theoretical approximations, the question would be: how will Epistemology be capable of clarifying the foundations of the epistemic construction of KO and strengthen such theoretical studies? Epistemology was taken into consideration by Japiassu (1977, p. 9, 25) after analyzing studies by authors, such as Blanché, Carnap and Lecourt. According to him, Epistemology would be the "genesis, development, structuring and articulation processes of scientific knowledge" or the "critical study of the principles, hypotheses and results of several sciences". Japiassu views science discourse as a strategic theory and science historicity as essential to an epistemological critique. The key concept is knowledge derived from scientific knowledge, which was initially linked to knowledge-state and, afterwards, to knowledge-process, understood as becoming