[Sigia-l] Applying Information Foraging Models

[Derek R]

Peter wrote:

>| How can I utilize [foraging science] in my practice?
>
>| Have folks on the list attempted utilizing Information
>| Foraging techniques, approaches, and models? Or 
>| thought about how to do so feasibly?


Here are some of my thoughts:

Application of Information Foraging (IF) 'science' is akin to dropping a
human in a natural setting where every little thing (nature) is labeled
with big flashing signs and blinking arrows (i.e. there is a tree with a
big sign stating 'This is a tree' with an arrow pointed at the tree,
beside a green lawn with a big sign stating 'This is grass' with an
arrow pointing at the grass, next to a big sign stating 'This is a sign
stating this is grass' with an arrow pointed at the 'This is grass' sign
. . . . ).

In short, the 'science' of Information Foraging immediately falls prey
to the problem of 'ad infinitum' -- which is to say for every
identifiable piece of information there must be another 'additional'
piece of information attached to it to better explain its existence, and
for each 'additional' piece of information attached there must be
another 'additional' piece of information attached to it to better
explain its existence, and for each 'additional-additional' piece of
information there must be another piece of information attached to it to
better explain its existence, and so on, to infinity ('ad infinitum').

So basically the Wisdom gone MISSING from foraging 'science' is that
when the internet, for instance, makes available a reference about a
flower, it is more likely to be exactly that -- 'just about a flower' --
and NOT akin to some rich symbolic matrix of parareferences.

[The 'Principia Mathematica' touches on this with Russell who was
attempting to verify, or prove, that one plus one equals two
(<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/russell-paradox/>).  After 10 years
he realized he *couldn't* do it, and the way this was glossed was that
Russell realized there was no such thing as two of any *one* thing.]

It is *Experiential Wisdom* which 'foraging science' ignores. In this
same way, the idea that one can verify, or prove, or otherwise simulate
'scent' or 'foraging techniques' *sans* humans actually performing these
things themselves, (i.e. without actual interaction, accomplishment), is
ridiculous.

It would seem a complete embrace of these 'quantified' systems is to
embrace the absurd. 

Nevertheless, foraging 'science' does have some *limited* use for
consumer activity (i.e. http://amazon.com using information from its
logs so an item-description can have other items which users viewed or
bought attached), but, as http://amazon.com model further demonstrates
holistically, this use MUST remain very *limited* or risk quickly
sliding into the burlesque.

In short, the primary existence of these theories is academic in nature,
in that, these studies happen in order to gain *citation* -- not
understanding (i.e. for practical use) -- and lack a holistic viewpoint
from which to ground application, instead, being so focused on
deconstruction and abstraction that they operate in fantasy-land.