Search
| # | Search | Downloads | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | The paper touches upon the issue of knowledge and information visualization, and the epistemological status of this process in terms of progressive development and application of smart technologies. The issue of visualization in general, and the visualization of knowledge in particular, is a controversial question. Due to this reason, there exist a number of approaches to the understanding of visualization mechanisms. However, with all the variety of approaches, their similarity is found in the sense that visualization of knowledge is the subjective need of a person to clarify the content of knowledge and make it meaningful for him/her and others. To visualize knowledge means “to know”, “to recognize”, “to decipher” what it is filled with. Without such a component, cognition or knowledge (as a result of knowledge) does not exist. However, under the conditions of active use of smart technologies, a person faces an ever-increasing amount of information and the improvement of methods for its processing, storage and distribution. There is a need to clarify the issue of the similarity or difference of the nature of visualization of knowledge and information. This problem can be solved by the identification of the nature and characteristics of information and knowledge. During the course of the research, a number of philosophical and scientific concepts are considered. The appeal to the philosophical concepts of Plato and Aristotle allows drawing an analogy regarding the nature of information and knowledge through the diversification of differences in the nature of the world of ideas (eidos) and the world of things. It is stated that the resulting model comes across paradoxical consequences, which consist in the fact that information and knowledge are of different nature: objective and subjective, one of which loses its essence in the attempt to connect them with each other. It turns out that interaction is possible only when the nature of one of the phenomena is transformed into the nature of the other, and this does not allow modeling the process of interaction between knowledge and information in a clear form. A parallel is drawn with modern scientific approaches in the field of natural sciences and computer science (Heisenberg, Shannon, Wiener), which come to similar results in studying the nature of information and knowledge, which see the information basis (model) of the world, similar to the Platonic world of ideas, in mathematical programs. It turns out that knowledge has a subjective nature, a person forms knowledge, and visualization is a natural form and stage of the process of cognition. Information has an objective nature, therefore, acts as an appropriate basis of our world. Visualization in this regard is not a natural form of the functioning of information, in contrast to knowledge, because it exists independently of a person. It becomes possible to visualize information only when it is transformed into knowledge and changes its nature. Smart technologies present the process of inverse knowledge, during the course of which the subject as a source of knowledge forms intentions of the external world in relation to its meanings. Smart technologies, whose main function is that their developers are assigned the function of the subject, direct the cognitive process in the opposite direction: from the subject to the external world, trying to transform knowledge into information (the most vivid example of such a transformation is artificial intelligence). In this case, visualization does not play such a significant role as in knowledge. Keywords: visualization, knowledge, information, epistemology, idea, thing, smart technologies | 1936 | ||||
| 2 | The article discusses how the use of smart technologies affects educational and cognitive processes, how semiotically and epistemologically presented the assessments of the role of smart technologies in relation to the phenomena of education and cognition are. By smart technologies, the authors understand modern, basically informational, technologies of various profiles, the main task of which is to perform semiotically and epistemologically the functions of a subject, to replace a person in various spheres of life (where and as far as possible). The authors note that, in assessing the role of smart technologies, some criteria are often ignored and the role and importance of others are exaggerated. To summarize, it can be argued that the quantitative criteria for the application of smart technologies prevail over the qualitative ones, thus allowing the substitution of the essential characteristics of smart technologies to be less significant (secondary), which gives rise to certain unjustified expectations and effects. In particular, the authors analyzed one of these pseudo-effects: the educational situation, when a student is studying a particular discipline within the framework of online learning (smart technologies make this possible), begins to be semiotically visualized as epistemological. This is due to the fact that the online learning format puts a person in front of the need to “discover” knowledge independently for themselves, without having the appropriate methodological training and full-time support from the teacher. The problem is that, in a large number of studies, this situation is viewed as a definite achievement, but, as further evaluation of the results of smart learning shows, students whose methodological training is already associated with a certain methodological “baggage” cope with this role while most students only worsen their learning outcomes. It is noted that, epistemologically, such a characteristic of smart technologies as a functional replacement of a subject is directly correlated with the position of a number of constructivist trends in epistemology and cognitive sciences, according to which “knowledge without a subject” is allowed. The combination of the designated parameters of smart technologies application in education and epistemology allows a number of researchers to admit the conclusion about the possibility of the formation of smart education and smart epistemology as “objectless” ways of learning knowledge and cognition. It is shown that such a scenario is permissible, if not to separate the concepts of information and knowledge, the processes of cognition and information. It is shown that, if this requirement is ignored, the concepts of knowledge and knowledge itself lose their meanings, because knowledge as a process is a way of relating knowledge and information, which is impossible in an outer-subject form. It is concluded that smart technologies, in the context of their application in education and epistemology, should be considered as an additional tool, whose function can be reduced to performing routine, but not heuristic, creative basic actions that remain the subject’s priority. Keywords: smart-technologies, epistemology, education, cognition, subject | 1563 | ||||
| 3 | The article deals with the problem of defining a term in the theories of terminological planning and the influence of the identified approaches on the organization of a student’s terminological work in the context of smart education. The aim of the article is to determine, in the context of smart education, the ways of a student’s terminological work depending on the interpretation of the term in the considered theories of terminological planning (General Theory of Terminology (GTT), Communication Theory of Terminology (CTT), Sociocognitive Theory of Terminology (STT), Frame-Based Terminology (FBT)). The article contains three sections: “Smart education: On the concept”, “Theories of terminological planning: The factor of the concept”, “The concept of the term, visualization and smart education”, expressing the authors’ sequence of consideration of the questions posed. The first section analyzes smart education as a concept. The latter is considered as a format of education whose key characteristic, according to the authors, is the maximum degree of the student’s independence in the development of knowledge and modern information technology. The knowledge acquisition system is interpreted through terminological work and terminology designation problems. The authors have established that the concept plays a key role in the definition of the term, since its status determines the status of the term. In the considered theories, there is no single way of understanding the concept and the term, and, consequently, the way of designating the term. The second section characterizes the main theories of terminological planning and features of term understanding and terminological work in them. In GTT, the concept is characterized as a specialized concept, in the context of which the meaning of the term is determined (according to the rule, one concept for one term). CTT uses the term “terminological unit”, which consists of three components: a unit of knowledge (concept), a unit of language (term), a unit of communication (situation). STT uses the concept “unit of understanding”, which can take the form of a category (repeated meanings of concepts) and the form of a concept (unique value). In FBT, the meaning of a term and concept is defined through a frame and its structure, represented by a conceptual component (nouns are used to express the static meanings of the term) and a predicative component (verbs are used to express the dynamic meanings of the term). The third section discusses the role of the concept “term” as a means of visualization, through which the student is able to understand the degree of comprehension of the term when learning. For smart education, it is important that, in the context of GTT, the student should only learn the special meanings of terms and does not take part in their formation; in the context of CTT, STT, FBT (differently in each), the student plays a decisive role in the formation of the meanings of concepts and terms. The key role in terminology designation is played by the mechanisms of visualization and conceptualization, presented as processes of a multi-level alternating change of the considered operations when working with concepts and terms towards greater abstraction of the latter. Keywords: smart education, term, concept, meaning, terminological planning theories, visualization, conceptualization | 952 | ||||
| 4 | The article examines the problem of visualising the social significance of linguistic expression in various traditions of philosophical and socio-humanitarian knowledge that have developed from the beginning of the 20th century to the present day. By the problem of visualising the social significance of linguistic expression, the authors mean how representatives of different approaches (using the example of analytic philosophy, sociolinguistics, and terminology) consider the influence of social factors on language. These areas are used not by chance, due to the differences that arise in the process of studying the problem of social significance by their representatives. It should be noted that these traditions are formed simultaneously and influence each other. In the field of analytic philosophy, the visualisation of the problem of the social significance of linguistic expression is considered by its representatives (e.g., G. Frege, L. Wittgenstein, S. Kripke, G. Baker, P. Hacker) as a particular aspect of the problem of the meaning of linguistic expression. More precisely, within this field, the focus is more on the influence of social factors on the process of signifying and interpreting linguistic expression. It is noted that the actualisation of social factors within the problem of the meaning of linguistic expression is connected with Wittgenstein’s approach to this problem through the aspect of determining linguistic meaning in the process of its use (communication), from which the problem of following the rule emerges. The discussion that arose in analytic philosophy regarding this interpretation demonstrated that the diversity of social circumstances does not allow for the use of universal and stable tools for signifying and interpreting linguistic expression. Nevertheless, representatives of analytic philosophy are more interested in the cognitive aspect of the problem of linguistic meaning, which is greatly influenced by the communicative factor, manifested in the uncertainty of the rules that participants in interaction may adhere to. In the field of sociolinguistics, the problem of visualising the social meaning of linguistic expression is posed and studied as a separate important problem (e.g., W. Labov, D. Hymes, P. Eckert). Nevertheless, the need to understand it in relation to the problem of general meaning is emphasised. The authors note that the specificity of visualising the problem of social meaning is conditioned by the study of direct communication and human participation in it in the fullness of their social circumstances. Hence, the emphasis is on language not as a formed semiotic system with established rules (writing) following the example of analytic philosophy, but on oral (verbal) communication. This shift leads to the actualisation of the communicative function of language and to the understanding that the problem of social significance is linked to the individual and social characteristics of the speaker, which is why the latter is variable, spontaneous and difficult to control. In such a visualisation, the possibility of identifying the cognitive function of language and determining the stability of manifestations of a person’s social status and their presentation in the communicator’s speech virtually disappears. In the field of terminology, the problem of social significance is considered through the simultaneous coupling of the cognitive and communicative functions of language. But the peculiarity of this field is that the main essence of the communicative function of terminology is to translate the cognitive content of knowledge represented by the latter (cognitive-communicative function). As the experience of terminology theories (e.g., O. Wüster, M. Cabré, R. Temmerman) shows, such a combination is difficult to implement, since when demonstrating the cognitive function, the communicative component is lost, and when actualising the communicative function, the uncertainty of the cognitive side of the meaning of terminology increases. Thus, the problem of visualising social meaning depends on the methods used to achieve it and is conditioned by the great variability of the social conditions in which linguistic expressions are used, which complicates the search for a universal approach to it. Keywords: social significance, analytic philosophy, rule-following problem, sociolinguistics, terminology, cognitive-communicative function | 60 | ||||