User talk:KYPark/2004

Michael Gorman
His distinction between information (out of context) and knowledge (as context) was positively quoted by Michael Lesk in Digital Searching to Digital Reading (2005), who in fact argues for the idea of digital library such as Raj Reddy's "Million Book Project" while Gorman "in futility" against Google's digital equivalent of "the mind of God" by saying:
 * ``I believe, however, that massive databases of digitized whole books, especially scholarly books, are expensive exercises in futility based on the staggering notion that, for the first time in history, one form of communication (electronic) will supplant and obliterate all previous forms.``

Lesk was euphemistic while Kevin Drum was explicitly antagonistic in reply in the Washington Monthly, Dec. 17, 2004:
 * ``Gorman starts with a reasonable . . . observation: information is not knowledge. Reading bits and pieces of books out of context is not the same thing as acquiring scholarly appreciation of a subject area. . . . Unfortunately, Gorman then proceeds to drive straight over a cliff and explode in a cataclysmic fireball of ignorance and contempt: [a quote around the above quote].
 * How can a scholar possibly have such a narrow mind - and a scholar of books, no less? Suggesting that Google should limit itself to reference books and leave everything else alone bespeaks a paucity of both spirit and vision that's staggering. And what's sadder still, it appears to be based on the defensive and Luddite notion that Google intends to put libraries - and librarians - out of business. . ..
 * I have no idea whether Google's initiative will eventually be successful. But I do know that digitizing and indexing vast stores of knowledge will be a boon to scholars on dozens of levels, as well as a source of knowledge and fascination to the rest of us.``

Perhaps it may be, in effect anyway, that "Google intends to put libraries . . . out of business." Such intentions were made explicit by information-minded forerunners such as Paul Otlet (1934), Herbert Wells (1938), John Bernal (1939), and Vannevar Bush (1945), all of whom looked forward to microfilming. Wells appeared most persuasive and persistent, taking advantage of his world-wide reputation, followed by Bernal.

Nevertheless, library scientists, e.g., W. Boyd Rayward and Michael Buckland, have to do only with Otlet, whereas computer scientists only with Bush with few exceptions but for Michael Lesk (2005). Such may be due to "bias, genre, . . ." that "We also need ways of judging" as he mentioned in Conclusion back then.

Lesk may better be identified as chemical scientist and information scientist than computer scientist, though he is one of the most widely experienced in computing. Or he is a digital librarian, hence computer and library scientist in materialist terms, doing without the abstract notion of information. Or he may best be a utilitarian, simply judging from his last concluding remark "And mostly we need to measure utility."

Wells took the World Brain seriously so that the world might solve the "world problem" caused by misinformation such as prejudice, propaganda, misunderstanding, etc. He was so sad to see another world war coming. What he took seriously was not the fate of libraries but of mankind. He even met Otlet in fact probably to be much inspired in effect. It deserves a mass celebration for an idea to evolve from person to person. According to Bernal's last remark (1939):
 * ``In science men have learned consciously to subordinate themselves to a common purpose without losing the individuality of their achievements. Each one knows that his work depends on that of his predecessors and colleagues, and that it can only reach its fruition through the work of his successors.``

Animals evolve sociologically as well as biologically, hence Edward Wilson's Sociobiology (1975). The implication of the social imitation or mimesis for evolution allured Richard Dawkins to imitate and coin meme in The Selfish Gene (1976). It should be taken much more seriously than Robert Pirsig's remark (1974) that everything is an analogy.

Indeed we need to learn how to imitate by observing others imitate. We should faithfully show up or write down how ideas actually or probably evolve from imitation to imitation, from meme to meme, say, from Otlet's idea probably to the World Brain, the Memex, and so on. Awfully mischievous and even evil are those who would only pay homage to the hero they make of their narrow-minded choice.

--KYPark (talk) 08:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)