[Sigia-l] Serious Discussion of IA Research?

[Conal Tuohy]

Boniface Lau wrote:

> > From: Conal Tuohy
> >  
> > Data are the raw facts, stored in a database or whatever. NB 
> > "Data" is a noun. 
> > 
> > "Information" on the other hand, is really a verb. Information is
> > something that data DOES. If data is "informative", then it becomes
> > information (or if you like, it participates in a process of
> > information). It informs. Hence data which is not transmitted is not
> > information.
> > 
> > So drawing a distinction between them on the basis of them being
> > "different things" is mistaken (a "category mistake"). 
> 
> Let me see... the word "information" is really a verb, and therefore
> treating it as a noun is a "category mistake"?
> 
> When will you publish your own version of the English language?

Cheers Boniface

I realise that "information" is classed as a noun in a dictionary. I certainly don't intend to produce my own version of the English language with "information" classified "properly" as a verb. :-)

But my point isn't really grammatical but philosophical. In saying that it's "really" a verb what I mean is that it is a PHILOSOPHICAL error to treat it as a SUBSTANCE simply because it is grammatically a noun. Some nouns describe things which are really activities or processes, and "information" is one such. 

I think this conception is helpful because it implies that what "information architecture" does is providing structure for an activity ("informing"), in which someone is being informed of something, rather than IA being about structuring some passive information-as-substance (what I'd call "data") and obscuring the fact that there is someone to be informed. Ultimately IA is about informing people, and if your focus is on information as a substance, then this leaves the people out of the picture.

This is similar to the philosophical conundrum of the relationship between mind and body. In Cartesian dualism both mind and body were regarded as substances. The question was then "how do they relate"? The linguistic philosopher Gilbert Ryle called this a "category mistake" - basically that our natural language is philosophically confused. I believe that when we treat "information" as a substance we are making the same "category mistake". The mistake in this case is to consider "data" and "information" as things of the same category, simply because they share the same grammatical category (noun).

http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/pom/pom_behaviourism_category.htm

Linguistic Philosophy isn't something I invented, but I think it is insightful. It challenges you to think critically about how your language works. Natural languages are not perfect! And English especially so! :-)

Con