At the base we have  ***data***. This corresponds to the "phenomena" portion of the model of the Scientific Method. It is raw and unstructured. 

The next level of the hierarchy is ***information***. Information is data that is structured—data that represent some point of view. Formally we call this *categorized*. (See <lens:categorization>.)

The top of the hierarchy is ***knowledge***. Knowledge, as <contributor:david-deutsch> defines it, is *information with causal power*. Knowledge includes explanations about how the world works—a special kind of information that can be used to explain what causes things to happen. 

This hierarchy provides a way to understand where we are in our understanding of the world around us. It makes valid the distinction between data, information, and knowledge expressed in quips such as "that is definitely good *information*, but is it *knowledege*?" 

In our quest to understand the world around us, the knowledge hierarchy is key because it helps us characterize our own progress in understanding the world. In every context, in our quest to cause progress around us, we must find out means to elevate from raw data to categorized information and to causal knowledge.

The *Knowledge Hierarchy* describes the underlying structure of the Scientific Method as means of creating knolwedge. This lens helps us distinguish three terms that are used interchangably in common language: *data*, *information* and *knowledge*. We treat these terms as distinct. Here we provide their relationship.

At the base we have  ***data***. This corresponds to the "phenomena" portion of the model of the Scientific Method. It is raw and unstructured. 

The next level of the hierarchy is ***information***. Information is data that is structured—data that represent some point of view. Formally we call this *categorized*. (See <lens:categorization>.)

The top of the hierarchy is ***knowledge***. Knowledge, as <contributor:david-deutsch> defines it, is *information with causal power*. Knowledge includes explanations about how the world works—a special kind of information that can be used to explain what causes things to happen. 

This hierarchy provides a way to understand where we are in our understanding of the world around us. It makes valid the distinction between data, information, and knowledge expressed in quips such as "that is definitely good *information*, but is it *knowledege*?" 

In our quest to understand the world around us, the knowledge hierarchy is key because it helps us characterize our own progress in understanding the world. In every context, in our quest to cause progress around us, we must find out means to elevate from raw data to categorized information and to causal knowledge.

Knowledge Hierarchy.pdf

Knowledge Hierarchy - thumb.jpeg

The *Knowledge Hierarchy* describes the underlying structure of the Scientific Method as means of creating knolwedge. This lens helps us distinguish three terms that are used interchangably in common language: *data*, *information* and *knowledge*. We treat these terms as distinct. Here we provide their relationship.

Knowledge Hierarchy

To borrow an example from Malcom Gladwell, consider David and Goliath. Modern readers of the story see it as the victory of the little guy over the big guy. But little guy vs. big guy is the wrong way to understand the story. Goliath was built for conflict at close quarters—his size and strength were advantages, his slowness and poor eyesight were not hindrances. For our purposes, think of him as a grappler with a knife. David was small and there’s no indication he was particularly strong. But he was quick and he was skilled at defending his sheep from predators using a sling. Think of him as a rifleman. It’s pretty clear that a competent shooter will defeat a grappler, so long as the grappler can’t get near. The little guy/big guy categories obscure what David (and Saul) knew—David could reach out and touch the big man. 

Naturally, good categorization is context-sensitive. At close quarters the story of David and Goliath would have been entirely different—big vs. little would’ve been the right categorization. 

Categorization is necessary to connect the messiness of the real world to testable hypotheses. 

*Editor's note: <lens:categorization> does not meet the definition of lens (as of yet) it's foundational so it is included in the lense catalog.*

Categorization is a fundamental component of the scientific method. A key step in building knowledge about the world, is to categorize our observations. As such categorization is essential to understand the phenomena we observe.

To borrow an example from Malcom Gladwell, consider David and Goliath. Modern readers of the story see it as the victory of the little guy over the big guy. But little guy vs. big guy is the wrong way to understand the story. Goliath was built for conflict at close quarters—his size and strength were advantages, his slowness and poor eyesight were not hindrances. For our purposes, think of him as a grappler with a knife. David was small and there’s no indication he was particularly strong. But he was quick and he was skilled at defending his sheep from predators using a sling. Think of him as a rifleman. It’s pretty clear that a competent shooter will defeat a grappler, so long as the grappler can’t get near. The little guy/big guy categories obscure what David (and Saul) knew—David could reach out and touch the big man. 

Naturally, good categorization is context-sensitive. At close quarters the story of David and Goliath would have been entirely different—big vs. little would’ve been the right categorization. 

Categorization is necessary to connect the messiness of the real world to testable hypotheses. 

*Editor's note: <lens:categorization> does not meet the definition of lens (as of yet) it's foundational so it is included in the lense catalog.*

Categorization.pdf

Categorization - thumb.jpeg

Categorization is a fundamental component of the scientific method. A key step in building knowledge about the world, is to categorize our observations. As such categorization is essential to understand the phenomena we observe.

Categorization

Ethos is character or, in a sense, credibility. This is the answer to, “why should I listen to this person or this message?” Sometimes we have credibility immediately—based on our connection to others our our reputation—but we can also build credibility in various ways. In the data-heavy world we live in, for instance, a grasp of data and its import generally builds ethos.

Logos is the logic or narrative that makes sense of facts and the world around us. This is the answer to, “what’s the message?” To engage people, listeners must be able to trace the reasoning, follow the story that the speaker tells. 

Pathos is the emotional resonance for the audience. This is the answer to, “how does it connect to me?” It’s not enough to have dry facts or even facts that have clear logic. To engage people we must connect (modestly) emotionally—listeners should be able to see themselves in the message. 

These interlocking principles have stood the test of time. To engage, to persuade we must balance these three elements.

The principles of engagement are as old as Western civilization. Aristotle broke persuasion into three elements: ethos, logos, pathos. As with hotspots, all three work together to engage people and inspire them to follow.

Ethos is character or, in a sense, credibility. This is the answer to, “why should I listen to this person or this message?” Sometimes we have credibility immediately—based on our connection to others our our reputation—but we can also build credibility in various ways. In the data-heavy world we live in, for instance, a grasp of data and its import generally builds ethos.

Logos is the logic or narrative that makes sense of facts and the world around us. This is the answer to, “what’s the message?” To engage people, listeners must be able to trace the reasoning, follow the story that the speaker tells. 

Pathos is the emotional resonance for the audience. This is the answer to, “how does it connect to me?” It’s not enough to have dry facts or even facts that have clear logic. To engage people we must connect (modestly) emotionally—listeners should be able to see themselves in the message. 

These interlocking principles have stood the test of time. To engage, to persuade we must balance these three elements.


Engagement.pdf

Engagement - thumb.jpeg

The principles of engagement are as old as Western civilization. Aristotle broke persuasion into three elements: ethos, logos, pathos. As with hotspots, all three work together to engage people and inspire them to follow.