Regardless of this, though, the main point of my post still stands. I have come to see any of these linear models as at least meaningless, and at worst misleading. The reference to “points” in my proposed model is oddly coincidental with your Hampton quote. My intention with this model was to highlight my position that such models are meaningless! (Incidentally, Hampton is only referring to data – he is not proposing a linear model.)

I found you post in Technorati’s watchlist. I thought of giving comments. When you said, “To me, knowledge by any (useful) definition has a whole range of facets…” I thought of viewing it something like this: Data (subject), information (learning), knowledge (understanding), wisdom (meaning). That is, the data is driven by meaning for us to learn from it, understand it, and put it into practice. Think of the construct as pattern, a line. Edward Hampton said:

“Data is simply a point of reality. By itself, it has no meaning. Think of a dot or a point. What does the dot or point tell us. Nothing. Not until we are able to make a ‘line’, i.e. add another ‘point’ can pattern start to develop.”

As I view it, we start to develop a line from a point when we ask who, why, when, where, what, and how; and see bits of thought forms. Here the data is transformed into information. We tried to understand this information, know its meaning, and do the likely action. What is your stand on this?

Kind regards,

Bong