|
The relationship among the concepts... is a "mental model" ... The interpretation of the verbal codes of this model depends ... on the context supplied by the current, subconscious dynamic world model Rasmussen 86, quoted in Pedersen 88
Occasionally, "knowledge" is used as a synonym for model:
...the operator builds progressively specific bodies of knowledge by experience and mainly through analogical reasoning.. The operator knowledge is thus structured in parts which may juxtapose each other, often heterogeneous, corresponding to specific situations linked together by analogies. (Mancini 88, p278)
The discussion in the previous chapter described a selection of the many approaches and opinions that can be found in the literature.
I shall take an experiential approach. The defence of hard science, so-called, is that it provides facts in the framework of a theory that enables us to understand the world.
From Anaximenes onwards, the alternative has been to accept that individuals create their world: there is no likelihood of common agreement: a microscope creates new worlds for the perceiver. Bishop Berkeley's argument for the existence of the world that is not perceived (God perceives it) is analogous to the argument for the existence of the world that is perceivable only through instruments.
That neither our thoughts, nor passions, nor ideas formed by the imagination, exist without the mind, is what every body will allow. And it seems no less evident that the various sensations or ideas imprinted on the sense, however blended or combined together (that is, whatever objects they compose) cannot exist otherwise than in a mind perceiving them. I think an intuitive knowledge may be obtained of this, by any one that shall attend to what is meant by the term exist when applied to sensible things. The table I write on, I say, exists, that is, I see and feel it; and if I were out of my study I should say it existed, meaning thereby that if I was in my study I might perceive it...
Berkeley has only this to say about the differences between the physical (ideas of sense) and mental (ideas of imagination).
...The ideas of sense are more strong, lively and distinct than those of the imagination; they have likewise a steadiness, order, and coherence...
Berkeley G () Principles of human knowledge.
The important points here are "steadiness, order and coherence". These are the hallmarks of the physical. Yet, the "mental model" so freely bandied about, also exhibits these qualities: they are even its defining qualities, else how could it do what it's supposed to do?
It is apparent that the mental model I shall examine:
- is an idea (to use Berkeley's term) created by each individual: it is not a picture, and in fact is not necessarily anywhere near as complete as the objects that it represents
- is itself a creation of that individual's perceptions and conceptions
- is not reducible to a physical structure (quelle horreur!), nor to a set of propositions or statements
The appropriate instruments for studying a person's ideas reside in the person. Structured tests (interpretations of structured self-reports) and verbal protocols will be the means.
It is necessary to understand this philosophical position, because the conception of the "user model" rests on the notion that it is possible to abstract determinable qualities of users and build them into external objects. On the philosophical basis outlined above, this is a fundamental error. Qualities do not have an existence independent of the object; qualities do not even inhere in objects; quality and object are inseparable, and are created by the perceiver.
You cannot, in any useful sense, create an embedded user model.
/ Next Models and representations
|
