A Call for a Paradigm Shift in the Information Discipline ^†

Abstract

This is an appeal for the collective reconsideration of the paradigm that be currently executed in the information discipline, because it is not a suitable paradigm for the information discipline but the one suitable for physical disciplines. The unsuitable paradigm has created a situation that recalls the old saying, “putting A’s hat on B’s head”. The misuse of the paradigm has been the unique cause of all the problems related to information studies; therefore, this should indeed be changed as soon and as swiftly as possible, if we want the information discipline to enter the highest stage of its development.

1. Introduction

It has been more than 70 years since the publication of the paper “The Mathematical Theory of Communication” by Claude E. Shannon [1].which has later been renamed information theory. Up to the present time, the theories and technologies related to information have widely been applied to almost every field of science and technology [2,3,4,5,6], making historical progresses and great achievements possible and bringing the world into the “information era” [7].

As scientists and technologists in the information discipline, we feel proud and happy. On the other hand, however, can we affirm that the studies conducted in the information discipline have really been perfect? If this is not the case, what should we do and how should we contribute to the further development of the studies in the information discipline?

To find the clear answer to the questions raised above, we should conduct a thorough investigation of the information discipline so as to see if there really exist any weaknesses, problems, or even mistakes, and big challenges in the discipline.

In the following sections, some findings of the investigation are briefly presented.

2. Concepts and Definitions

To avoid unnecessary misunderstandings, we need to discuss and redefine some foundational concepts related to the studies in the information discipline.

(1)

Paradigm

There have been many different ways in everyday English to explain the meaning of the word of “paradigm” [8], such as model, standard, pattern, typical example, etc. They are more or less similar to each other, but only to a certain extent.

The most precise explanation of the word “paradigm” can be expressed as

Paradigm = Worldview ‘+’ Methodology

(1)

As we can see from (1), the explanation of the word “paradigm” includes two elements. One is the world view people use for appropriately understanding things in the real world, answering the question of what the thing is, while the other is the methodology, or approach, that people use for properly dealing with the thing, answering the question of how to suitably deal with the thing.

In the context of scientific research, the above formula can be changed to

Paradigm = Scientific view ‘+’ Scientific methodology

(2)

Therefore, we can have the definition of paradigm detailed below.

Definition 1.

Paradigm

The paradigm of a scientific discipline consists of the scientific view and the scientific methodology relative to that discipline, where the former defines what the discipline is in essence, while the latter defines how to perform research in the discipline.

We can see from Definition 1 that the paradigm of a discipline is the supreme guiding force for the studies in the discipline. Whether the paradigm of a discipline is suitable or not determines if the studies in the discipline are successful or not.

(2)

Information and the Ecological Chain of Information

Matter, energy and information are regarded as the three categories of raw resources widely existing in reality. Through proper manufacturing, handling and processing, the products of the raw resources could provide humans with various kinds of materials, power and artificial intelligence, respectively.

Information is, no doubt, useful as a raw resource. However, on the other hand, it is much more useful if information, as a raw resource, is properly processed, transformed and utilized by the subject, particularly the human subject.

In practice, information, as a raw resource, has to be perceived, processed and utilized by a subject for implementing a certain goal(s), thus forming the ecological chain of information within the framework of subject–object interactions, as shown in Figure 1 [9,10].

The model in Figure 1 shows a typical process of subject–object interactions commonly existing in reality. The lower part of the model stands for the object existing in a certain environment and the upper part represents the subject’s processing functions.

Once the object information originated by the object acts on the subject, the latter produces an (intelligent) action reacting to the object for achieving, or keeping, the subject’s goal. The subject’s (intelligent) action is produced through a number of functions of information processing, forming the ecological chain of information, as shown in Figure 1.

It can be clearly seen from Figure 1 that there two kinds of information in the ecological chain of information; one is named ontological information and the other, epistemological information. Ontological information is presented by an object in the environment, whereas epistemological information is produced by both subject and object. Both ontological information and epistemological information are important to human beings.

Definition 2.

Ontological Information

The ontological information produced by an object in the real world is defined as the object state and pattern of the state varying, all presented by the object itself.

Ontological information is more often named object information. It exists without depending on whether or not it is perceived by a subject. So, it is a purely objective concept of information that has nothing to do with subjective factors.

Definition 3.

Epistemological Information

The epistemological information a subject perceives from the ontological information of an object has three components, namely, (1) form (syntactic) information provided by the object sensed by the subject; (2) utility (pragmatic) information provided by the object evaluated by the subject with respect to their goal; and (3) meaning (semantic) information provided by the object produced by the subject via the mapping of the former two components into the space of meaning (semantic space) and the naming of the result.

Epistemological information is more often named subject-perceived information. Clearly, it is originated from ontological information, but it is modulated by the subject. So, it is a subjective concept of information that is related to both subject and object.

Note that the definitions of form (syntactic) information and utility (pragmatic) information are obvious and easy to understand, while the definition of meaning (semantic) information is not so intuitive and may thus need certain explanations.

The principle for producing meaning (semantic) information from form (syntactic) and utility (pragmatic) information is specifically explained in Figure 2 below.

The interrelationship shown in Figure 2 can be expressed by the equation

Y = λ (X, Z)

(3)

The symbol X in Equation (3) stands for form (syntactic) information; Y, for meaning (semantic) information; Z, for utility (pragmatic) information. λ is the logic operator of “mapping & naming”, mapping the combination (X, Z) into the space of meaning (semantic) information and then giving it a name.

It is obvious from Equation (3) that, whenever meaning (semantic) information Y is obtained, the combination of form (syntactic) information X and utility (pragmatic) information Z is also obtained. This means that meaning (semantic) information Y can represent the form (syntactic) information X and the utility (pragmatic) information Z.

Note that the definitions of syntactic, pragmatic and semantic information stated in Definition 3 and expressed in Equation (3) are the new results reported in [11,12] and they were not made clear by neither Peirce nor Morris.

Additionally, note that it would not be complete if only one of the definitions of information, either ontological information or epistemological information, were considered. It would also not be complete if only the two definitions of information were considered without the understanding of the interrelations among X, Y and Z.

(3)

The Information Science, AI and the Discipline of Information

Definition 4.

Information Science

Information science (IS) can be defined via the following four elements:

The object in research is information and the ecological chain of information;

The content of research is the properties and the laws governing its ecological chain;

The research approach is the methodology of information ecology;

The goal of research is to strengthen all information functions of human intelligence.

Definition 5.

Human Intelligence and Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Given the problem–goal–knowledge sequence, human intelligence is the ability to solve a given problem and reach a given goal by utilizing the knowledge provided.

AI is a machine’s ability, endowed by humans, to simulate human intelligence.

Note that the term “human intelligence” is a subset of “human wisdom”.

Definition 6.

Discipline of Information/Information Studies

The discipline of information/information studies is understood as the studies on the entirety of information science containing AI as its high member.

It is quite clear from Definitions 4–6 that the scope of the discipline of information, or information studies, is not limited to the scope of Shannon’s information theory, but it is much wider than it.

It is also clear that, as an academic discipline dealing with information science, it should establish its own paradigm so as to have the greatest force guiding and regulating the related academic activities of the discipline.

On the other hand, however, the paradigm of a discipline cannot be formed at the same time its academic activities occur. It can only be summarized and refined from the academic practice of the discipline conducted over a sufficiently long period of time in history.

3. A Historical Challenge the Information Discipline Has Been Facing

Up to the present time, there have been two major categories of academic disciplines, that is, the discipline of physical sciences and the discipline of information science; yet, there is only one category of paradigm existed, that is, the one for the discipline of physical sciences, while the one for the discipline of information science has not been existed.

This is because of the rule whereby the formation of the paradigm of an academic discipline has to occur much later than the occurrence of the research activities of the discipline. This is why the information discipline started to develop in the 1940s but could not form its paradigm before the present time.

Because of the facts stated above, the research activities carried out in the information discipline have borrowed in practice the paradigm of the physical disciplines, which has existed for hundreds of years.

This is the so-far un-avoided suffering of and challenge to the studies of the information discipline.

Many colleagues may not believe that the above-mentioned challenge exists. To be more convinced, let us have a more specific investigation on the paradigm of the physical disciplines and the paradigm practically executed in the information discipline.

The paradigm of the physical disciplines has the features shown in

Table 1. Major features of the paradigm of the physical disciplines.

Scientific View	Object of the study: Pure physical entity with no subjective factors Focus of study: The structure and functions of physical systems Property of the object: Deterministic evolution
Methodology	General approach: Divide and conquer Means for description/analysis: Formalism Means for decision making: Formalistic matching

.

It is quite unfortunate to see that the paradigm executed in practice in the information discipline including AI (see

Table 2. Major features of the paradigm actually executed in the information discipline.

Scientific View	Object of the study: Physical systems with no subjective factors Focus of study: The structure and functions of physical systems Property of the object: Deterministic evolution with noise
Methodology	General approach: Divide and conquer Means for description/analysis: Formalism Means for decision making: Formalistic matching

) has been almost the same as that of the physical disciplines (Table 1).

As it can be seen from the results in Table 2, information studies have suffered a series of magnificent difficulties. Some examples are reported below.

(1)

No Unified Information Discipline

Because of the employment of the principle of divide and conquer, which is the methodology of the paradigm of the physical disciplines, as is seen in Table 1 and Table 2, from its beginning till the 1990s, the information discipline has been divided into a number of pieces mutually isolated from each other, such as sensing (information acquisition), communication (information transferring), computing (information processing), controlling (information execution), etc. As for AI, it has been divided into three branches, isolated from each other and inconsistent with respect to one another, such as artificial neural networks, expert systems and sensorimotor systems. These separations have led to the lack of a unified, or general, theory both for the information discipline and AI.

(2)

Very Low Level of Intelligence in all AI Systems

Due to the employment of the purely formalist approach, which is another methodology of the paradigm of the physical disciplines, as we can see in Table 1 and Table 2, both the factors of meaning (semantic) information and utility (pragmatic) information, which are at the nucleus of the ability of understanding, have been completely ignored. This has led to a very low level of intelligence in all AI systems.

4. What to Do Next?

Both the problems mentioned above, that is, no unified information discipline and very low level of intelligence of all kinds of AI systems, cannot meet the needs from the society. What we should do is shift the paradigm from one suitable for physical disciplines to one for the information discipline.

Then, what is the paradigm that is suitable for the information discipline?

Based on nearly 60 years of studies, we summarized and refined the paradigm suitable for the information discipline, presented in

Table 3. Major features of the paradigm suitable for the information discipline.

Scientific View	Object of study: Info process within subject–object interactions Focus of study: Double win between subject and object Property of the object: Nondeterministic evolution
Methodology	General approach: Methodology of information ecology Means for description/analysis: Trinity of form–value–meaning Means for decision making: Understanding-based method

below.

The detailed explanations of the paradigm suitable for the information discipline shown in Table 3 and the significant applications and great implications provided by the paradigm for the information discipline will be reported in the next article.