LIS as Applied Philosophy of Information: A Reappraisal

Library information science (LIS) should develop its foundation in terms of a philosophy of information (PI). This seems a rather harmless suggestion. Where else could information science look for its conceptual foundations if not in PI? However, accepting this proposal means moving away from one of the few solid alternatives currently available in the field, namely, providing LIS with a foundation in terms of social epistemology (SE). This is no trivial move, so some reasonable reluctance is to be expected. To overcome it, the proposal needs to be more than just acceptable; it must be convincing. In Floridi (2002a), I have articulated some of the reasons why I believe that PI can fulfill the foundationalist needs better than SE can. I won’t rehearse them here. I find them compelling, but I am ready to change my mind if counterarguments become available. Rather, in this contribution, I wish to clarify some aspects of my proposal (Floridi, 2002a) in favor of the interpretation of LIS as applied PI. I won’t try to show you that I am right in suggesting that PI may provide a foundation for LIS better than SE. My more modest goal is to remove some ambiguities and possible misunderstandings that might prevent the correct evaluation of my position, so that disagreement can become more constructive. We often hear about the differences between the ordinary librarian, busily involved in managing and delivering a public service, and the information scientist or the LIS expert, deep in theoretical speculations. The line of reasoning here seems that a foundation for LIS should satisfy both and that this is something that PI cannot achieve, hence the objection that PI is not “social” enough. I accept the inference, but I disagree on the premise. For I think we should distinguish as clearly and neatly as possible between three main layers.

[1]  L. Floridi,et al.  Computer ethics: mapping the foundationalist debate , 2002 .

[2]  L. Floridi On defining library and information science as applied philosophy of information , 2002 .

[3]  L. Floridi Sextus Empiricus: The Transmission and Recovery of Pyrrhonism , 2002 .

[4]  Luciano Floridi,et al.  What is the Philosophy of Information , 2002 .

[5]  L. Floridi,et al.  Internet Ethics: the Constructionist Values of Homo Poieticus , 2003 .

[6]  L. Floridi,et al.  ON THE LOGICAL INSOLVABILITY OF THE GETTIER PROBLEM , 2003 .

[7]  L. Floridi Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information , 2003 .

[8]  Mark A. Bedau,et al.  Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information , 2003 .

[9]  Luciano Floridi,et al.  On the intrinsic value of information objects and the infosphere , 2002, Ethics and Information Technology.

[10]  Luciano Floridi,et al.  Two Approaches to the Philosophy of Information , 2003, Minds and Machines.

[11]  Rónán O'Beirne,et al.  The Blackwell Guide to the Philosophy of Computing and Information , 2004 .

[12]  Luciano Floridi,et al.  Outline of a Theory of Strongly Semantic Information , 2004, Minds and Machines.

[13]  Luciano Floridi,et al.  On the Morality of Artificial Agents , 2004, Minds and Machines.

[14]  Robert Cavalier The Impact Of The Internet On Our Moral Lives , 2005 .

[15]  Luciano Floridi,et al.  Is Information Meaningful Data , 2005 .

[16]  Amy E. White The Impact of the Internet on Our Moral Lives , 2007 .