Subject: Re: [IFETS-DISCUSS] Knowledge Defined IFETS-DISCUSSION Digest - 27 May 2003 to 28 May 2003
From: Dobbins, Jim (Jim.Dobbins@DAU.MIL)
Date: Wed 28 May 2003 - 15:29:05 MEST
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 09:29:05 -0400 From: "Dobbins, Jim" <Jim.Dobbins@DAU.MIL> Subject: Re: [IFETS-DISCUSS] Knowledge Defined IFETS-DISCUSSION Digest - 27 May 2003 to 28 May 2003
Kaylyn,
I agree with what you have said. I also think an essential component is
integration. Data is the bits and pieces of what you are given or have
accepted as truth. Knowledge, to me, is understanding the meaning and
implications of the data and also being able to integrate it into your
overall existing knowledge base. I think this is also what you are
saying, in other terms. What is presented for integration either
confirms what is already there, adds to what is there and thus expands
the integrated knowledge base, or forces us to consider there may be an
error in our existing knowledge base. This last, if we are willing to
accept it, means we must find the root cause of the error and possibly
reintegrate the existing knowledge with the new information, creating a
new knowledge base from which we now operate.
This leads to another question or issue. Is knowledge necessarily
accompanied by conclusions? Do we have knowledge until we have made
conclusions? Is information/data, in the absence of conclusions, merely
information and not knowledge? Is this, in part, the difference between
training and education? When trained, we know information. When
educated, we understand the implications and are able to draw
conclusions about what we have experienced and about what we will
experience, because in becoming educated we have expanded our integrated
knowledge base and our ability to use it in new ways.
Jim Dobbins
James H. Dobbins, Ph.D.
Technical and Engineering Department
Building 208, Room 5
Defense Acquisition University
9820 Belvoir Road, Suite G-3
Ft. Belvoir, VA 22720
703-805-5416
Fax: 703-805-5082
jim.dobbins@dau.mil
http://www.dau.mil
Date: Tue, 27 May 2003 07:11:48 -0700
From: Kaylyn Anderson <tech-write@PRODIGY.NET>
Subject: Knowledge Defined
In response to Errol Thompson, I am in total disagreement. Knowledge had
better be more than "knowing" or even considerations. I certainly would
be very concerned having heart surgery or neurosurgery by a surgeon who
considers the practice of surgery or has some knowing about it. I want a
surgeon who is knowledgeable, skillful, with a proven track record of
quality and success. Knowledge is not what you simply know. Knowledge
without use or skill is rote memory. Knowledge is being able to put into
practice what you have learned. I am a novice photographer. I do not
have knowledge of photography, but I am learning about composition and
putting it into practice. The practice of composition, critiqing, and
challenging myself is making me more knowledgeable. I am unknowlegeable
of lighting in photography and only hope that my pictures turn out the
way I intend. I know that when I take a course in lighting and practice
its concepts, I will become knowledgeable. It won't make me an expert,
but I will be abe to produce good product. I might say I have a "working
knowledge of something" to explain that I am not completely skillful. I
worked for many years in engineering and technical communication, and I
can firmly state that I am knowledgeable in the field of technical
writing and design. I can even qualify myself as an expert, but I know
that others will not consider me an expert until I am published. Kaylyn
Anderson
---------------------------------------------------------
List address to send message to everyone: ifets-discussion@computer.org
Details of current discussion: http://ifets.ieee.org/discussions/discuss.html
Forum website: http://ifets.ieee.org/
Forum's contact person: kinshuk@massey.ac.nz
Info on Join/Leave List: http://ifets.ieee.org/maillist.html
---------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2a24 : Wed 28 May 2003 - 23:46:15 MEST