From: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca (Don Christie)
Subject: Re: malthus
Reply-To: dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca
Organization: Nova Scotia Agricultural College, Nova Scotia, CANADA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:00:52 GMT

In article <-1364614911snx@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au>, gil@Gilsys.DIALix.oz.au (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>
>In article <1992Nov6.163726.1019@nstn.ns.ca> dc_ags@ac.nsac.ns.ca writes:
>
> > I don't pretend to be any expert on the subject, but I am familiar with the
> > way that the Department of Agriculture here makes its decision on what (if
> > any) knowledge or technology will find its way into the food production
> > process. 
>
>  [ . . . ]
>
>Thanks for this, Don. I had not intended to direct my comments to the
>agricultural sector in particular, but you have nevertheless offered
>some very useful information indeed. Basically, what you describe is
>the way our Department/s are traditionally structured as well, most
>particularly in playing umpire to the qualification of knowledge
>arising from rural research and innovation.
>
>At the moment we are also trying something new again through the Land
>Management Society here, which may have a key *intercalary* role to play
>as an impartial clearing house of information to the various players
>involved. It has fallen to me in my capacity as an anthropologist to
>coordinate the development of such a role.
>
>Without going into a complicated argument about existing political and
>economic divisions in the rural community, what we are trying to get at
>essentially is how various people interpret the information they have
>at their disposal in two different respects:
>
>        1. According to what they filter out of the information which
>        has got through to them, creating an intentional bias to any
>        action toward research and innovation they may subsequently
>        want to take.
>
>        2. According to what information has got through to them cf
>        what has failed to get through, creating an unintentional
>        bias.
>
>My argument is that instead of concentrating so exclusively on qualifying
>the knowledge made available to farmers *a posteriori*, against a paucity
>of information they have access to *a priori*, by making a wealth of
>information available the knowledge is subsequently imparted to a very
>much informed audience. That is, we work to qualify the information
>also, well ahead of the decision making processes which make knowledge
>available to be integrated into the world-view of farmers.
>
>As a rule of thumb differentiating *information* from *knowledge* in
>the meantime, the former will usually invoke a "So what?" response and
>may not always be transferred into long-term memory.
>
>Anyway, does the above make sense to you? I have marked some of the key
>technical terms with which some of you may not be familiar, as I do
>feel it very much worth discussing further.

Yes, Gil this does indeed make a lot of sense. I agree this is a topic
that we should work on. We have to be able to distinguish the difference
between "knowledge" and "facts", particularly as they both relate to
"opinions"..... our food production systems are not just running themselves,
neither are they just a chaotic bunch of individuals working to better 
their own interests... there is an overall plan, and at the moment, it is
working as well as we can make it. Nobody in their right mind would ever
think the system is perfect, but there just aren't that many people putting
in their ideas... by writing here and contributing whatever you can, you
are doing your part to be a part of the solution. 

//Don
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Who ELSE could have written The Adventures of Wild Bill Groady??