All Life Is Problem Solving

Comparative Evaluation of the Two Theories Let’s compare the two theories of the three worlds, world-by-world, as it were. First, Popper’s W1 has the disadvantage that it blurs the distinction between the living and the non-living, since both are included in W1. This also has the effect of including knowledge in W1 without specifying a […]

[Read more →]

Popper’s Three Worlds Ontology In his Objective Knowledge (1972), Karl Popper introduced the idea of three ontological worlds or domains. The first world is the world of material objects, events, and processes, including the domain of biology. The second world is the world of mental events, processes, and predispositions– the world of beliefs and other […]

[Read more →]

I think your twin posts on knowledge management and its possible relevance to national governments raise some very interesting and creative ideas that warrant a serious pause for thought. I have just been in the United States and revisited the Washington Mall, and the axes of the Mall including the White House, the Congress and […]

[Read more →]

The Organization of Knowledge Management in National Governments (continued) A second possible answer to the question of how to organize KM in National Governments is to organize it in a decentralized way across national governmental agencies and inter-agency teams. Each Governmental unit, or inter-agency group, would have some KM personnel and would be responsible for […]

[Read more →]

National Governmental Knowledge Management The primary focus of Knowledge Management, thus far, has been on organizations, communities, and teams, with some emphasis on Personal Knowledge Management (PKM), and “Knowledge Cities.” Knowledge Management in Government has primarily continued the organizational focus of most work in the field. It is agency-based and project-focused, and has had little […]

[Read more →]

First, I think that true and false are terms we should apply to linguistic networks rather than single statements. Networks are necessary, because single statements generally assume a good deal of background knowledge illuminating the meaning of those statements. If the background knowledge is expressed in language also, we have a network of statements, and […]

[Read more →]

I don’t think there are empirical truths. The idea that there are such truths is a hangover from positivism and empiricism, now discredited epistemologies, even though many social scientists seem unaware of this. Also, from my viewpoint one really needs to distinguish between three kinds of knowledge: biological knowledge, mental knowledge, and cultural knowledge. Biological […]

[Read more →]

The over-riding problem with shifting from a “KM” orientation to a “knowledge sharing” one, is that the words don’t mean the same thing, and focusing on one or the other may well lead to different policies, programs, and interventions. Put another way, since “Knowledge Sharing” and Knowledge Management are not the same thing, it’s possible […]

[Read more →]

I think that most, if not all, current knowledge sharing programs do not distinguish those knowledge claims that are just information, from those knowledge claims that are knowledge, because they don’t know how to do so. And I also think that the consequence of this is that most, if not all, current knowledge sharing programs, […]

[Read more →]

IBM was not the first large organization to decide that “knowledge sharing” is an easier sell than “KM.” The World Bank preceded IBM in this move by more than a decade, long before the advent of Web 2.0 or Enterprise 2.0. The Bank decided to use”knowledge sharing” as the orienting idea in their knowledge-related program […]

[Read more →]