Re: Rational Prediction and Knowledge

[lifemap@ix.netcom.com]

>From Ed Baker (lifemap@ix.netcom.com)
Re: Vic Forte's call for help

Vic asked: 
---------
Could anyone please help me to understand the following taken from The New
Economics P104: "A statement devoid of rational prediction does not convey knowledge."
Let's take an example of a statement. "My name is Vic"

So this does not convey knowledge? Is he saying here, that it only conveys
knowledge if I remain Vic? In other words the statement "My name is Vic"
does not contain the statement "tomorrow I am going to change my name".  

Ed comments:
------------ 
The way I see it, the criterion (operational definition) of knowledge of the empirical, 
observable world that Dr. Deming (and Shewhart, and Lewis) used requires the ability to predict. 
To simply state "what is" is information, not knowledge. It doesn't require theory or the 
systemic, holistic awareness that allows one to project to the future. One can just memorize 
what has already happened, or what now is (which is really the past by the time we are aware of 
it), and mechanically project to the future.  But the world is constantly changing, so there is 
risk in mindlessly projecting (versus knowledgably projecting) from past to future. 

Just because John was "best" in the past doesn't mean he will be "best" in the future. This is 
one of Dr. Deming's key points that he demonstrated in the Red Bead Experiment.  The statement 
"My name is Vic" is not the same as the statement "Next year my name will be Vic." This latter 
statement requires some conceptual effort to integrate the environmental factors that make the 
statement likel
y to actually occur in fact and not just words, i.e., to be verified. Vic, or 
whomever makes the statement, seems to know that Vic likes his name and will not try to legally 
change it, or whatever else might produce a change.

Vic also wrote:
---------------
 So let's try to think of a statement that cannot contain any element of
prediction. How about "yesterday my wife had a headache, but it went away by tea time". 
According to Dr Deming, this statement does not convey knowledge because it does not contain an 
element of prediction. Sorry, I don't understand. It seems to convey knowledge to me. It is
information that I did not previously have. I can say to my wife "how are you feeling today?"

Ed continues:
-------------
 IN MY VIEW, if Vic knows enough about his wife's experience with headaches, e.g., 
how long they last (on the average), and that her experience has been stable (repeatable), and 
he has no reason to expect things to change (e.g., no medication introduced), that provides a 
basis to predict her future experience with headaches. He might be right, or he might not. To 
the extent he is right, one can say --- using Dr. Deming's definition of knowledge, that Vic had 
knowledge --- he predicted, based on the theory of no change in the factors that produce 
headaches. Or, with Vic's urging, she might in fact try some new medication with proven results. 
In effect, he has predicted that she will be helped, otherwise why take the medication. On the 
other hand, if Vic cannot predict when and where and for how long his wife will have headaches, 
he has no knowledge regarding this specific condition.

Dr. Deming used the term "rational prediction," meaning reason was applied. Of course one can 
predict using all kinds of models, or hopes, or wishes, that might not meet the accepted 
criteria of "rational" for the problem at hand. For example, Dr. Deming wrote that a theory of a 
flat earth might work for the problem of building a house, but not for constructing a highway.

It's the future that matters. Leadership has to deal with the future, not the past. One who can 
see what others cannot, one who can integrate all the relevant environmental factors, perhaps 
like a Jeff Bezos, has knowledge. I suppose it remains to be seen whether Jeff Bezos had 
knowledge. Whether investors have made money on prediction or on hopes and wishes remains to be 
seen. Some made money not necessarily on predicting the success of amazon.com, but on predicting 
how greedy humans would act. And sometimes luck does play a part, in spite of oneself.

Ed Baker (lifemap@ix.netcom.com)
==============================================================================