Data and information

Data and information

Any search for definitions in scientific literature never fails to puzzle me. In this case, I was looking for definitions of information. What I found was often relative to other terms like data, knowledge and intelligence. Interestingly, rather trying to elucidate the relations between terms, most definitions sought to make sharp distinctions, as well as to downplay one term and elevate another. In particular, data were often presented as raw, unorganized facts, permanent object properties, with little if any meaning - base stuff. Information, on the other hand, was elevated and refined: data processed and organized so as to be meaningful and useful. Frequent examples of information referred to statistical techniques, which clearly could purify data to the extreme.
Such definition reek of biases, e.g. that data are dumb or that knowledge is the proper accumulation of information. As a result, they fail to account for things we know about the world and our cognition, from the way information is communication between physical entities, such as a flower sending information to a bee's eyes, to how human creativity affects information. Coming against such definitions leaves me with more questions than answers. Should I therefore just trust the authority of the authors and impose their definitions on my perception of the world?
The answer can be found in rhetoric and its modes: pathos, ethos and logos. Pathos appeals to our emotions: let's save the environment, for example. Even with limited further explanation, it seems a good idea. In practice, however, it can lead to disasters, like saving one species from extinction and, by doing so, disturbing ecological balance to the detriment of more species. So, pathos needs to be accompanied by logos: good argumentation that helps us understand. Ethos relates to authority, such as an eminent professor telling stuff in a lecture. We tend to believe such authorities. It is important, however, that they also employ logos to convince us by explaining and illustrating their statements.
From the perspective of rhetoric, therefore, we have little to gain from definitions merely based on ethos or pathos. We also need to apply logos, both as developers and as receivers of definitions. Beware of definitions given in a couple of sentences, without further analysis and explanation.

Learning motivation

Learning motivation 

I've been using a smartphone app to learn a new language but I'm considering giving it up - the app, not learning the language. Already my frequency of use has dropped so low that the app is giving up on me: it no longer sends me regular motivational messages.
Ironically, it's exactly this motivational approach that's getting on my nerves. In general, I can live with the learning approach of the app and its limitations. I've nothing against the repetition of words and phrases or the abrupt introduction of new stuff that reduces me to guessing, although the further I go, the more evident it becomes that the underlying database of the app is rather limited. I can also tolerate the adverts, even when they interrupt the flow of a lesson. What irritates me is the constant game-like urging to achieve high scores, to compete for a high listing, the silly rewards and the nagging reminders.
My objection is that all that amounts to noise that distracts me from learning and discourages me from using the app. I'm not learning a language to show off by collecting virtual rewards; I want to be able to speak the language. My true reward would be the ability to read or listen to something and understand it. Why not treat me to an interesting short story or a humorous dialogue that I could appreciate with my current, limited appreciation of the language?
The same silliness extends to all kinds of learning, I fear. Rather than empowering the learners and letting them realize it, there are always some trivial pursuits that supposedly modernize learning but in fact distract from the purpose and effects of learning.

Metrics

Metrics 

"I've measured out my life with coffee spoons" T.S. Eliot, The love song of J. Alfred Prufrock

"Can't sing. Can't act. Balding. Can dance a little." reported RKO Radio Pictures screen test report on Fred Astaire 

Can we reduce potential, capacity and achievement to a few numbers, however meaningful and validated by scientific research? Does Messi's physique explain why he can be fascinating to watch? I'm sure that there have been earnest explanations of his success on the basis of some physical capacities but equally certain that they don't tell the whole story; they just isolate some features and promote them over others. How about Best? He managed rather little, yet he's remembered as one of the greatest. Which metrics explain his popularity?
Academic life abounds with metrics. Even worse, people take them seriously;  they start from some index of a researcher than from a publication that appeals to them. It's easy to play the game, just like in social media: recirculating trending stuff and connecting to mutual admiration groups does the trick. Having large numbers of PhD students who routinely cite you is quite handy.
My problem is that most heavily cited publications and highly indexed researchers hold little appeal as fundamental sources. They are useful as reference points, as indications of the state of the art, existing tendencies and dominant approaches but they tell little that's new, although this may be an unfortunate side effect of their success. In the end, I have to dig deep to find something I can really learn from. Its metrics are secondary; it's quality primary.