Confused about Knowing
In my last blog post, I surveyed the dark side of information in terms of the entrenchment of misinformation and the likelihood that users will lack the discernment and, perhaps, the motivation to reject misinformation.
There is another, and more subtle, dark side which has to do with an almost universal lumping together of three very different concepts. Most people, including some experts, treat data, information, and knowledge as pretty much synonymous.
Here are two sample quotes from a tech publication in 2011:
“This period of history has been called the Information Age because it makes available instant access to knowledge that would have been difficult or impossible to find previously.”
“The information that [LinkedIn Founder Reid Hoffman] described is just the tip of the iceberg. We are already gathering a thousand times more data than that.”
https://techcrunch.com/2011/04/10/the-new-information-age/
Notice in the first quote that information, and knowledge are used interchangeably. In the second quote information and data are used interchangeably.
Similarly, information and “big data” are used interchangeably in this 2014 publication:
https://www.wired.com/insights/2014/06/beyond-information-age/
Deep learning is not the same as the ability to access data or information. A search engine on a computer pulls up entries based on their supposed relevance to the search terms. This is not the end, but the beginning for the human who initiated the search. The human is the one who is going to attempt to learn from the items unearthed by the search. The human is the potential knower.
Knowledge makes no sense without a personal knower.
This isn’t a nit-picking quarrel about vocabulary. I am fleshing out the concept of knowledge as it has historically been understood.
Jean-Francois Lyotard in the 1984 translation of his 1979 book, The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge, predicted that the concepts of information and knowledge would coalesce as the computer became the means of storing information. Knowers would become extraneous because of a “thorough exteriorization of knowledge.” He presciently foresaw the so-called knowledge economy of today in which knowledge is treated as a commodity that “is . . . produced in order to be sold.” (p. 4)
To get some clarity, let’s track down some etymologies. Information (noun) informs (verb). How does information inform? Here’s the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) entry:
“inform (verb)
I. To shape the mind, character, etc.; to instruct, teach, train; to provide with knowledge. Cf. form v.1 2.”
Tracing the cross-reference, here’s the OED on form (verb). “To mould by discipline or education; to train, instruct.”
Information is a resource with the potential to form the thinking or the character of a person.
To inform is to form in (the person). It is a shaping or molding influence that changes the person. They have not just been provided with facts of which they were previously ignorant.
Contrary to postmodernism, there is no knowing without a personal knower.
DIKUW is an acronym that stands for Data, Information, Knowledge, Understanding, and Wisdom.
DIKUW is a nice compact way to talk about how my approach to learning differs from most learning experiences. Most learning centers on DIK or frightfully, just on DI. These approaches assume that U (understanding) and W (wisdom) are not things that can be taught and represent goals that some students will reach on their own.
Public Domain
Perhaps a concrete illustration is in order. The realm of human genomics provides many examples of the distinctions between DIKUW. Let’s use the BRCA1 gene. This is one of two genes that are the most common causes of hereditary breast cancer.
You can be tested for whether your version of the BRCA1 gene is normal or is a form that predisposes you to breast cancer. Because of the expense of the test, most people are only tested if they have a family history of breast cancer, or a cancer has been discovered and more information is needed to know what the best treatment would be.
The data would come directly from the test. Data would consist of a series of letters that are the letters of code that make up the gene. Since there are only four different letters in the DNA alphabet (A,C,G,T), the readout of the gene code for BRCA1 isn’t going to be immediately helpful. See below for what this would look like for a simpler example: a portion of the gene that, when mutated, causes sickle-cell anemia. Making sense of the genetic code for a gene (data) requires creating meaning from the data or transformation of the data (see above DIKUW diagram).
A single letter change in the DNA code (A—>T) causes sickle-cell anemia. (DNA is double-stranded, but only one strand is shown here).
Essential Cell Biology 5th ed., (2019), p. 222, Norton Publishing.
The data become meaningful (informative) only when compared with a normal BRCA1 gene’s code. Without that reference for comparison, you couldn’t know the significance of the data from your test. There is a database of sequences for healthy BRCA1 variants and for those with specific mutations that are known to lead to cancer. The test result would be reported, not as raw data, but as a yes—you have a mutant gene that may lead to cancer, or no—your gene is normal and wouldn’t lead to cancer. This is information. It answers a “What” question: what kind of gene do you have?
The next stage is where your information moves to action(s). It requires a knower—normally your physician or oncologist—who will suggest possible courses of action. This answers the “How to” question: How to respond to the information. You would be given instruction about your options and helped to make a treatment decision if treatment is needed. For many individuals, this is where the learning would stop. Such individuals not infrequently unknowingly tell family and friends things their oncologist never said, because they have heard new information and they don’t have the conceptual basis to process the information.
Because you are committed to deep and durable learning, you want to know more. You want to understand. Understanding means you want to be able to answer the “Why” question: Why does this mutation of BRCA1 lead to cancer? In wrestling with the new ideas your oncologist has given you instruction in, you probe deeper. You find that the BRCA1 gene when functioning correctly repairs breaks in DNA that may occur randomly during your lifetime; but that mutant forms of the gene are deficient in repair. Since cancer is always traced to damaged DNA, this explanation makes sense even if it doesn’t allay all the other concerns you would have.
Those additional concerns would be moving you toward wisdom. What is the best course of action? Note that wisdom concerns thinking through the future implications and consequences of the various options you might choose.
I hope you can see your need for mentors in this process of learning. In this BRCA1 example that would include those who developed the test, those who ran the test and interpreted it. In addition, your physician or oncologist are your instructors and mentors as they help you decide what to do and guide you through what to expect, as well as the ups and downs of treatment. Other patients who have experienced a particular treatment might be of benefit to you as well.
I view learning as tripartite. The elements of learning are facts, concepts, and principles.
Facts are the nuts and bolts of an academic discipline; they are the DI (data and information) characteristic of the discipline. We all know that we are in the middle of an information explosion (especially in science). What we have today is a Niagara that pours out bits and bytes of data and sometimes facts. What we often lack is any sense of how the data combine to form factual assertions (instead of trivia) and especially how the facts relate to one another. Concepts are the ideas (abstractions) with which a learner relates isolated facts and thinks about them. Concepts are the stuff of knowledge about a discipline. Thinking cannot be done without concepts, and the clearer the concepts, the clearer the thinking. Principles are the most powerful of all and are broadly applicable declarations about causality. I’ll dive into concepts and principles in 2022.
T.S. Eliot in a stanza from Choruses from the Rock is often credited with inventing the notion of DIKUW:
Where is the Life we have lost in living?
Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?
Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?
These are haunting questions and worthy of serious reflection, which I’ll do in the next post.