User:Rswanborough/sandbox

Informationology new article content ...

Informationology is the study of information as an artefact and not as a commodity.

Origination & History:

The study of information as an artefact rather than a commodity was initiated in the late 1950s by Norbert Weiner, Gray Walter and Victor Serebriakoff. In his book 'Brain' Victor refers to an all-night discussion between the three of them in the Wiltshire village of Urchfont in 1957 and its initiation of the study of information in its own right.

Norbert Weiner had earlier already spent much time with Claude Shannon to develop the inappropriately named 'Information Theory' - inappropriate because the focus was on information communication and not on semantic content; thus a more appropriate name should have been 'Communication Theory', but that was probably not obvious at the time and the existing name has stuck, to the vexation of those who, in the 1980s, actually wanted to produce an Information Theory that encompassed semantic content and provided the science associated with this subject.

Victor Serebriakoff subsequently wrote the book, 'Brain' (published by Davis-Poynter in 1975) to particularly focus on the manner in which the brain processes information. In order to do that, it was essential to first understand information at a detailed and scientific level. Victor was probably the first person to be a true informationologist, he also called himself a brain-smith. Through Victor's teaching and mentoring, Russell Swanborough joined the ranks of informationologists in the early 1980s and this group now includes academics such as Professor Rene Pellissier of the University of South Africa (UNISA).

Rene Pellissier created 'The Informational Accounting Institute of Southern Africa' to mentor the group and subsequent research has provided a foundation for a true theory of information. The result is included in the Science of Informational Management or ScIAM. Users include Professor Michael Kahn of Stellenbosch University.

Principles:

The principal focus of informationology is to establish what information is - to define its component parts - and not to focus primarily on the manner in which information is applied. Indeed the latter can only be established successfully if the former is fully understood.

The separation between artefact and commodity is not well understood and is best described by use of an analogy. Take, for example, a chair. A chair is 'defined' in the Oxford English Dictionary as a 'seat for one person'. This is not a true definition, rather it is a description of the use of a commodity called a chair and not what a chair actually consists of; as a result, it actually hides the real potential of a chair. This shortcoming is common in all dictionaries and is caused by space limitations and brevity needs.

Informationologists define a chair as a 'platform approximately 40cm square, suspended approximately 40cm from the floor, always with a back-rest and optionally with arm-rests'. Using this definition of the subject enables dramatic expansion of the applications for a chair which can now be seen to be used in many different manners.

As a one-step step ladder for changing light bulbs.

As a temporary parcel shelf on a busy shopping day.

As a handy weapon to break over an opponent's head in a bar fight.

As a support for the display of a good pair of legs.

As a place for frightened dogs and cats to shelter under.

As a dance partner (Elvis Presley's Jailhouse Rock refers).

As an exercise machine.

If metal, as an anchor for a small boat.

If wicker-work, to be held in a lion-tamer's left hand to complement the whip held in the right hand.

If electric, as a device to execute criminals.

And, to be deliberately pedantic, you could sit on it as well.

What this illustrates is that when a so-called definition is based around commodity it actually restricts thinking on possible applications of that commodity. If, however, the underlying artefact is fully understood then applications for the commodity can increase dramatically. In summary, if you are told that a chair is to sit on, you may believe that the only thing that you can do with a chair is sit on it: if, however you are told that it is a suspended platform (see above) then you may imagine the significantly increased list of possible uses including those shown.

So it has been with information. The lay person, when attempting to define information, tends to focus on information as a commodity and espouses such definitions as 'sequences of signals that can be interpreted as a message' or 'data used to make decisions'. These are uses of information as a commodity and do not address the fundamental underlying artefact.

Informationology requires that, when defining an artefact: "All the words in a definition must be defined, and that a definition may not be: 1) recursive (e.g. ‘information is data to which value has been added’ and then ‘data is raw information’); nor 2) contextual (e.g. ‘the average of…’); nor 3) inductive (e.g. ‘the offspring of…’); nor 4) ostensive (e.g. ‘the same as…’); nor 5) impredicative (e.g. vicious circle ‘chicken & egg’ type situations such as ‘information is measurement and measurement is information’); nor 6) persuasive (e.g. ‘what you need to make decisions / sequences of signals that can be interpreted / measuring of performance…’); nor 7) extensional (e.g. ‘what goes in the middle / start / end of…’); nor 8) intensional (e.g. attribute based ‘that which can’t work without…’)." In fact, items 6, 7 and 8 are goals, and thus don't belong in definitions; if they go in then it is no longer a definition, it is just a description.

Information is a tangible artefact and, as a result, informationology is based on two foundation principles: 1) it must identify the dimensions of information, and 2) it must be able to numerically quantify all aspects of the identified dimensions.