The study of human
knowledge is as old as human history itself. It has been a central
subject matter of philosophy and epistemology since the Greek
period. Knowledge has also begun to gain a new wave of attention in
recent years in relation to the importance of knowledge as
management resource and power.
But knowledge is
fundamentally different from information: the difference is that
between knowing a thing versus simply having information about it.
And if, as one writer claims, “knowledge management covers
three main knowledge activities: generation, codification, and
transfer”, then topic maps can be regarded as the standard
for codification that is the necessary prerequisite for the
development of tools that assist in the generation and transfer of
knowledge.
Human knowledge
systems are classified into two kinds: formal scientific knowledge
(SK) system and traditional knowledge (TK) system. The main
difference of these two kinds of knowledge systems is their format.
The SK system is essentially in explicit format
– can be articulated in formal language including grammatical
statements, mathematical expressions, specifications, manuals, and
so forth. This kind of knowledge thus can be transmitted across
individuals formally and easily. This has been the dominant mode of
knowledge according to the (Western) scientific philosophy.
However, the format of TK system is
mostly tacit – hard to articulate with
formal language. This knowledge is embedded in the experiences of
indigenous or local people and involves intangible factors,
including their beliefs, perspectives, and value
systems.
Differences between
these knowledge systems can be discerned. The most important of
these are related to how indigenous or scientific knowledge is
acquired (lived experience versus formal training), and how that
knowledge is used on a day-to-day basis (local versus non-local
applications). In both the North and the South, indigenous
knowledge is increasingly regarded as a precious resource. However,
that knowledge needs to be formalised, since it is essentially of a
fragmentary and provisional nature. It is in this formalisation
phase that problems with respect to the application of indigenous
knowledge are most likely to arise. This type of knowledge is still
not as well known as the coded and circulated objective language
and the printed products of scientific discourse.
Inherent in the
classification and categorisation of traditional knowledge is the
notion that Western knowledge traditions are scientific while
non-Western traditions are unscientific and no longer
valid.
The idea that modern
reductionist science is a description of objective reality,
unprejudiced by value judgements, is being rejected increasingly on
historical and philosophical grounds. It has been historically
established that all knowledge, including modern scientific
knowledge, is built on the use of many methodologies, and
reductionism itself is only one of the scientific options
available.
There is no
'scientific method'; there is no single procedure, or set of rules
that underlies every piece of research and guarantees that it is
scientific and, therefore, trustworthy. Scientists revise their
standards, their procedures, their criteria of rationality as they
move along and enter new domains of research just as they revise
and perhaps entirely replace their theories and their instruments
as they move along and enter new domains of research .
The emergent
biological theories of complexity, dissipative structures and
self-organisation have more in common philosophically with
traditional systems of knowledge than with Cartesian
science.
