I would interpret Einstein's statement as a wise thought or an aphorism more than a scientific postulate. I found this Einstein quote on a page with aphorisms "10 Amazing Life Lessons You Can Learn From Albert Einstein", when googling the statement: “Information is not knowledge. The only source of knowledge is experience.”

Thanks a lot Hans for the great opinion shared. Your point is well noted

Dear David,

I found of particular interest what the physicist Carlo Rovelli recently argued about the fundaments of "information" in the picture of world. Using his words - himself citing Democritus — : "To go back to Democritus metaphor: atoms are like an alphabet, but an immense alphabet so rich to be capable of reading itself and thinking itself. With Democritus worlds: ‹The Universe is change, life is opinion that adapt itself›”.

Referring to you strict question, I briefly suggest that Einstein's statement refers "information” to atomistic particle, maybe dividable in more than one deviation [pheraps something like Democritus "opinions", or maybe some super-subjectivities compacted into a historical belief or line of cultural thought], probably "massable“ in subjective syntagma that is what we know as "knowledge", we sort through policies.

Here is Carlo's paper: http://fqxi.org/data/essay-contest-files/Rovelli_information.pdf

Have a good day,

g

Interesting...thanks a lot Guiseppe for the brilliant suggestion and the link,,,,Enjoy the rest of the day..cheers

Dear Divaid

Data are literally ‘the givens’ (this is the translation of the Latin word ‘data’) and are typically raw findings.

Data can be information, but usually the latter term refers to data that has been transformed in some way, for example, by statistical or qualitative analysis to summarise the raw materials of the findings of a study. Thus, a mean value for a set of data is information that can be used to gain understanding of the setting under investigation.

Knowledge is information that has been further processed, and set in a framework or context. So, for example, looking at information on the average life expectancy of men and women over the past 200 years, and linking this to income levels, can supply knowledge about how and why these have increased. The scientific method is intended to progressively refine the knowledge that is produced from the information available. However, social scientists argue that knowledge-production is a social process, and consequently knowledge is not absolute. It will always depend on the theoretical or contextual framework within which it has been produced.

Brilliant, thanks a lot Nicholas for the in-depth clarification. Your response is well noted

Based on the Information Technology textbooks, data are raw of facts, events, activities, and transactions that are captured, recorded, stored, and classified, but are not organized to convey any specific meaning. For example, grade point averages or bank balances. Information is a collection of data organized in some manner so they are meaningful to a recipient. For example, student names and grade point averages, or customer names with bank balances.

Knowledge consists of information that is organized and processed to convey understanding, experiences, accumulated learning, and expertise as it applies to a current process.

Thanks a lot Kamberaj for the wonderful enlightenment on the concept of data, information and knowledge. Your suggestion is well noted. So far, there have been suggestions on how data, information and knowledge are linked. None has been made yet about how these are linked to policy. Any suggestions on that?

Actually, it is the knowledge which gathers all the information to produce a complete policy. In practice, it is not just about policy, but also process and procedure, which all together (policy, procedure and process) are allowed to be modified and adjusted to reflect best practices and strategic vision of the effects and outcomes of the knowledge.

thanks a lot once again Kamberaj for the great response. Your effort is well appreciated and your response highly noted

Dear David

Policy may or may not be based upon data (evidence-based policy). Data is organised to provide information and this is set within a conceptual or theoretical framework to create the knowledge base for policy formulation.

Using my earlier example: data on mortality can be subjected to analysis to produce information on life expectancy. This information can be interpreted to provide knowledge on how average life expectancy of men and women has increased over the past 200 years as living standards rose. This knowledge can be used to inform policy on how to improve health (for example, by reducing child poverty).

Much policy, unfortunately, is not evidence-based at all, but derived from assumptions, biases, previous policy, political commitments or agendas. Policy makers may make claims that their policy is based on evidence, and may manipulate statistical data to support their preferred policy. Opponents will cite other evidence to make rival knowledge claims and suggest alternative policies. This is why it is probably not a good idea to allow politicians to make policy!

interesting...thanks a lot Nicholas once again for your brilliant response...I am however confused here with the "evidence-based policy" which by your explanation above depends not on data. One thing I do know believe in is that, policy involves transformation of knowledge (whether tacit or explicit) into sustainable decisions, and knowledge comes into being through perception, communication, association and interpretation of information which in one way or another would have some form of data in there...so how can there exist a policy that is not based on some form of data. And if there actually are such policies, how effective are they?

Hi David

Well I could devise a policy to exterminate all ghosts using rat poison, based on my theory (and knowledge-claim) that they are susceptible to this chemical. But this policy would not be based on any evidence at all, would it?

As to the effectiveness of this policy, this would depend upon whether people were willing to believe I had got rid of all ghosts in this way.

Many government policies have little basis in data. Rather they are based on political doctrine.

Policies can of course be tested by gathering evidence. This often happens, but after the policy has been introduced, rather than before. That is why policies are often abandoned, because it is shown after a while they do not work.

.Oh ok, thanks a lot Nicholas for the clarification. Just a follow-up question on your suggestion: should you decide to exterminate ghosts using rat poison based on your theory and knowledge-claim, how would you know the right number of rat poisons to use, at what time they are more effective, at what rate they should be applied, and in which vantage points they should be placed to achieve your goal (ignoring hypothetical achievements but rather placing more emphasis on practical achievement of that goal)? I guess regardless of your theory and knowledge-claim, you may depend on some past works whatsoever to gather some data/information to efficiently and effectively achieve this...wouldn't that be the case?

Hi David

In a perfect world, all policy would be backed up by high-quality knowledge based on either research data. But the point of my example about ghosts and rat poison is that policy can be devised entirely without recourse to data. It can be based on entirely spurious reasoning, or on concocted evidence, or on prejudice.

There are many examples of such bad policies, from the racial policies of Nazi party in 1930s Germany to the current UK Coalition government’s policy (recently abandoned) to try to reduce illegal immigration by touring the streets with a mobile poster telling such illegals to ‘Go Home’.

My point really is to dispel the myth that policy has to be based on evidence. It should be, but it often isn’t.

oh ok, thanks a lot Nicholas for the clarification. I get it now....Your response is much appreciated and well noted