Knowl. Org. 31(2004)No.1 49 Ch. Zins: Knowledge Organization: An Epistemological Perspective Knowledge Organization: An Epistemological Perspective Chaim Zins Department of Information ScienceHuman Services, Bar-Ilan University of Haifa Email: [email protected]. Dr. Chaim Zins is an information scientist, at the Department of Information Science, Bar-Ilan Uni- versity. He is a former member at the Department of Human Services, University of Haifa. Dr. Zins' current research is focused on knowledge organization, foundations of information science, knowl- edge management, information and referral services, and information retrieval. Zins, Chaim. (2004). Knowledge Organization: An Epistemological Perspective. Knowledge Or- ganization, 31(1). 49-54. 11 refs. ABSTRACT: This philosophical essay explores the epistemological foundations of knowledge organization and discusses im- plications for classification research. The study defines the concept of “knowledge,” distinguishes between subjective knowl- edge (i.e., knowledge as a thought in the individual’s mind) and objective knowledge (i.e., knowledge as an independent ob- ject), establishes the necessity of knowledge organization in the construction of knowledge and its key role in the creation, learning, and dissemination of knowledge, and concludes with implications for the development of classification schemes and knowledge maps. Overview second stage, I will discuss the relationship between subjective knowledge and objective knowledge. (No- Scholars and practitioners in the field of knowledge te that “subjective knowledge” is equivalent here to organization rarely stop to reflect and ponder upon the knowledge of the subject or the individual kno- the philosophical foundations of their field of exper- wer, and “objective knowledge” is equivalent here to tise. Nevertheless, as Budd (2001) argues, epistemol- knowledge as an object or a thing. They are not re- ogy is important for Library and Information Science lated here to truthfulness and arbitrariness, which are (LIS). This philosophical essay aims to explore the usually attached to the concepts of “objective knowl- epistemological foundations of knowledge organiza- edge” and “subjective knowledge”). The two modes tion, and to discuss implications for the development of knowledge – as a thought and as an object – are of classification schemes and knowledge maps. Epis- interrelated. In fact, objective knowledge is an exter- temology is the branch of philosophy that is focused nal subjective knowledge. Furthermore, the realiza- on the theory of knowledge. It explores the possibil- tion of objective knowledge necessitates subjective ity of knowledge. The study delves into the con- knowledge; meaning, that objective knowledge be- struction of knowledge. It exposes the key role of comes real and meaningful only to the individual knowledge organization in shaping the way we per- who is aware of it by his or her own subjective mind. ceive the knowledge domain, and thus establishes its The third stage will focus on the argument that indispensable contribution to the creation, learning, subjective knowledge is a product of a synthesis. Ba- and dissemination of knowledge. sed on this argument I will argue, in the fourth stage, The philosophical argumentation is composed of that subjective knowledge requires two types of pre- six stages. First, I will differentiate between the two experiential intellectual elements, in addition to the approaches to defining “knowledge,” namely, knowl- substantial, sensory or intellectual data, which com- edge as a thought and knowledge as an object. In the prise its content. These are the pre-experiential rele- 50 Knowl. Org. 31(2004)No.1 Ch. Zins: Knowledge Organization: An Epistemological Perspective vant constitutive concepts and a pre-experiential (subject) knows that P (proposition). It is the reflec- structure, which represents logical, linguistic, ex- tive and/or the expressed content of what a person planatory or probabilistic relationships among them. thinks that he or she knows. (Note that the contents These two elements shape the way we perceive the of our reflective and/or expressed thoughts are in the world and construct knowledge. (Note that I use the form of propositions). Propositional knowledge is di- term “pre-experiential,” rather than “a priori” in or- vided into inferential and non-inferential knowledge. der to stress that these two intellectual elements do Non-inferential propositional knowledge refers to di- not depend on the specific experience. Yet it is based, rect intuitive knowledge. For example, very we often but rather, are based on previous experiences. The we use general abstract terms, such as “love”, “jus- term “a priori,” usually refers to intellectual ele- tice”, “soul”, and “god”. Usually which we intuitively ments, which are not dependent on any sensory ex- understand them. When we draw some conclusions perience, while the term “pre-experiential” refers he- based on these terms, our non-inferential knowledge re to intellectual elements, which are not based on turns into inferential knowledge. Inferential knowl- the present experience; still they are based on previ- edge is a product of inferences. The field of knowl- ous experiences). edge organization, which is a branch of information In the fifth stage I will claim that objective knowl- science, as well as any academic field, is composed of edge classification schemes, such as the Library of inferential propositional knowledge. In fact, this pa- Congress Classification scheme (LCC), affect our per, as well as any scientific paper, is composed of in- cognitive maps. Note, however, that this claim is still ferential propositional knowledge. It starts with a subject to empirical scientific verification. proposition, and then it develops it layer upon layer Finally, in the sixth stage, I will claim that the epi- until its final conclusions. stemological analysis helps us to distinguish between Two definitions of knowledge. Still, what is two kinds of structures: conceptual cognitive pre- knowledge? There are two basic approaches to define experiential structures and external recorded or do- the concept of “knowledge,” knowledge as a thought cumented structures. Consequently, there are two in the individual’s (or subject’s) mind, and knowl- major structuring approaches: rationalistic (i.e., phe- edge as an object or a thing. The first approach con- nomenological or conceptually based) structuring ditions the knowledge in the individual’s mind. methods, and empirical structuring methods. Identi- Knowledge is a thought that can be characterized as a fying and formulating these methods set an agenda justified true belief. According to Bernecker and for classification research. Dretske, (2000), in traditional epistemology there This is the outline of the philosophical argumenta- are three individually necessary and jointly sufficient tion. Now, let us study it in details. conditions for propositional knowledge: justifica- tion, truth, and belief. The epistemological literature Meanings of “knowledge” has thoroughly debated these conditions (e.g., Get- tier, 1963, Lehrer (1997), and Audi, 2003). One of Ty p e s o f k n o w l e d g e . The concept of “knowledge” is the most influential papers was written by Edmund used in various meanings and contexts. In traditional Gettier (Gettier, 1963). Gettier posited a hypotheti- epistemology there are three main kinds of knowl- cal situation intended to call into question the defini- edge: Practical knowledge, knowledge by acquaint- tion of knowledge as completely justified true belief, ance, and propositional knowledge (Bernecker and and to argue for a softened position. Without delving Dretske, 2000). Practical knowledge, which is usually into the epistemological literature, it seems sufficient known as ‘knowing how’, refers to skills. Skills are for our purposes to characterize subjective proposi- functional abilities (e.g., riding a bike, and driving a tional knowledge by the justifiable certainty that the car). The distinction between knowledge by acquaint- individual’s own thoughts are true. ance and propositional knowledge, which is also The second approach ascribes an independent ob- known also as descriptive knowledge, was initially of- jective existence to knowledge. Knowledge is a col- fered by Russell (1912). Knowledge by acquaintance lection of concepts, arguments, argumentations, and is direct non-mediated knowledge of objects. This is rules of inference. They are true and exist independ- the knowledge that a person has of external physical ently, not depending on the subjective knowledge of objects, by means of direct sense data, or direct the knowing individual. The implications of this ap- knowledge about his or her own self. Propositional proach to LIS were recently discussed by Hjorland knowledge comes in the form of ‘knowing that’;; S (2004). Knowl. Org. 31(2004)No.1 51 Ch. Zins: Knowledge Organization: An Epistemological Perspective Karl Popper’s “Worlds”. The reader who is famil- One can answer these questions assuming meta- iar with the philosophy of Karl Popper probably physical assumptions on the ontological status of finds a resemblance between the two approaches to different types of entities (like Karl Popper, for in- defining “knowledge” and the concepts “World 2” stance). I prefer to remain on the practical level. The- and “World 3.”. Popper (1967, 1972, 1977) differenti- re is no meaning to knowledge that no one knows. ates among three