From: isds11990012@memstvx1.memst.edu
Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology
Subject: Re: Shannon-Weaver Comm Model
Date: 12 Dec 92 11:54:54 -0600
Organization: Memphis State University

In article <GISLE.92Dec11153401@gyda.ifi.uio.no>, gisle@ifi.uio.no (Gisle Hannemyr) writes:
>

  A conversation between Phil and Myself and later Gisle deleted.
 
> Well, I can only say that I find this highly bizarre.  If you look
> these guys up in any decent reference work, you'll discover that both
> Claude Elwood Shannon and Warren Weaver are theoretical mathmaticians
> that have no association whatsoever with psychology, if you don't
> count Shannon`s work on AI and computer chess (I won't -- it was also
> very mathematical in nature).
> 
> Shannon was even aware of the possible misunderstanding that could
> result from his calling his object of study "communication theory",
> and his original 1948 paper (reprinted in the book I've given above)
> starts out with the explicit disclaimer that:
> 
>     "the semantic aspects of communication are irrelevant to the
>      engineering problem"
> 
> which basically means that his theory addresses the encoding and
> transfer of binary digits across a wire -- not whether this stream of
> bits has any meaning.  Remember that Shannon's research was funded by
> the phone company (Bell) -- and the immediate applications of
> Shannon's mathematics was knowledge about how one could build
> telephone networks that made more efficient use of bandwidth and
> better signal/noise ratios..
> 
>> Basically what is taught in psych classes at this university is that
>> communication consists of....
>>
>>       sender --> encoder --> medium --> decoder --> receiver
>>	  ^                                               I  
>>         I------------------------------------------------
>>
>> BTW, its also taught in journalism, education, and some other subjects.
>> While this might be science, its no more scientific than Scn's communication
>> model.
>>
>> Also, the Shannon Weaver model leaves out certain things that MUST
>> be present for a communication to occur.  Attention, Intention, Duplication,
>> and Understanding.  These are present in Scientology's model.
> 
> First, the above is _not_ the Shannon-Weaver communication theory.  It
> is true that a figure like the one above appears near the beginning of
> their book to illustrate some of their terminology, but the theory is
> something different, expressed with rigor in the language of
> mathematics (real mathematics -- not the bogus stuff one sometimes
> comes across in the works of Hubbard).  And their theory can be
> verified by experiment.  Using the theory, you can design encoding
> systems that makes much better use of network bandwidth and reduce
> your networks sensitivity to (electrical) noise than if you just
> implemented a non-encoded channel.  In short, the SW communication
> theory consists of the stuff that science is made off.
>

   Oh.  Sorry, the textbooks on this campus refer to it as 
Psychology.  False information I guess.  Doesn't surprise me.
 
> As far as the other things you mention (attention, etc...), I would
> say that most of these address the semantic aspects of communication.
> Shannon was clearly aware that someone might think that these things
> should be part of a "communication theory", and explicitly stated why
> he left them out in the introduction to his paper (i.e. because he
> felt they was irrelevant to the engineering problems he was facing --
> which was how to make use on the bandwidth and minimize noise in a
> telephone network).
> 
> If the "Intro to Psychoticism" textbook used on your campus led you to
> believe that Shannon and Weaver was" psychs", and perhaps is
> responsible for making you believe that the above _is_ the Shannon
> Weaver "Communication Theory" -- then that's sad.  Could it be that
> you read past a misunderstood word when you read that passage :-) .

  No MUs, just false information.  Thanks for clearing it up.

> Otherwise, I would highly suspicious about the academic integrity of
> your University's psychology department.
>

   Oh I have been for a long time.
 
> But that is not my main point, John.  My main point is that you was
> appearently prepared to claim that diverse unsubstantiated ramblings
> of L. Ron Hubbard had just "as much right to be called science as" the
> Shannon-Weaver communication model -- without even having attempted to
> read the book presenting the theory you are comparing Scientology
> with.
>

   Sorry, I'll try to remember to look to the original sources
for my information from now on.
 
> How could you make such a claim when you _knew_ that you hadn't read
> nor understood the theory (but only some half-baked misrepresentation
> of it in some undergraduate textbook)?
>

   Sorry.  Human beings do that sometimes.  How can the skeptics
make such claims about Scientology without looking to the original
sources but some half-baked misrepresentations such as TIME magazine?
 
> Are you now prepared to retract that claim?
>

   Certainly, concerning the SW model.  
 
ARC,
John Holifield


Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology