Advertisement

Erkenntnis

, Volume 69, Issue 1, pp 69–92 | Cite as

Understanding Epistemic Relevance

  • Luciano Floridi
Original Paper

Abstract

Agents require a constant flow, and a high level of processing, of relevant semantic information, in order to interact successfully among themselves and with the environment in which they are embedded. Standard theories of information, however, are silent on the nature of epistemic relevance. In this paper, a subjectivist interpretation of epistemic relevance is developed and defended. It is based on a counterfactual and metatheoretical analysis of the degree of relevance of some semantic information i to an informee/agent a, as a function of the accuracy of i understood as an answer to a query q, given the probability that q might be asked by a. This interpretation of epistemic relevance vindicates a strongly semantic theory of information, according to which semantic information encapsulates truth. It accounts satisfactorily for several important applications and interpretations of the concept of relevant information in a variety of philosophical areas. And it interfaces successfully with current philosophical interpretations of causal and logical relevance.

Keywords

Relevant Information Multiagent System Semantic Information Artificial Agent Subjectivist Interpretation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The first time I discussed the topic of a theory of epistemic relevance was during a talk I gave at the University of Regensburg (Regensburg, Germany 9 November 2005). I owe to Rainer Hammwoehner and Hans Rott not only the kind invitation but also the conceptual pressure that made me start working on this paper. A first version of the paper was then presented at the Department of Communication Science of the University of Salerno (Fisciano, Italy, 10 May 2006), and I wish to thank Roberto Cordeschi for that opportunity and the feedback I received in that occasion. The paper was further improved and discussed at the “Workshop on Information Theories”, organized by Juerg Kohlas and Giovanni Sommaruga at Fribourg University (Münchenwiler, Switzerland, 17–18 May 2006). They, the attendees, and especially Rolf Haenni and Jeremy Seligman provided some very helpful comments. A new version was the subject of an invited talk at the Department of Philosophy of the University of Siena (Siena, 14 June 2006), where I took advantage of a long discussion with Claudio Pizzi on secondorder probabilities. This led to a paper presented at a seminar organised by the Computer Science Department of Mälardalen University (Västerås, Sweden, September 2006), where I was kindly invited by Gordana Dodig Crnkovic. The discussion with the participants and especially with Gordana, Susan Stuart and Lars-Göran Johansson generated several improvements. The issue of hardwired questions was discussed there. The final version of the article then became the ISI Samuel Lazerow Memorial Lecture I delivered at the University of Arizona (Tucson, 8 February 2007). I am grateful to Don Fallis for the invitation and to the Research Group on the History and Philosophy of Information Access, the School of Information Resources and Library Science and The International Visitors Fund for the kind support. The last opportunity I had to discuss this paper was as an invited lecture at the 30th Wittgenstein Symposium and at the 48th Boston Colloquium for Philosophy of Science. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the help, useful comments and criticisms by Pia Borlund, Ken Herold, Karen Mather, Paul Oldfield and Federica Russo and the journal’s anonymous referees. As usual, all the aforementioned people are responsible only for the improvements and not for any remaining mistakes.

References

  1. Aumann, R. J. (1976). Agreeing to disagree. Annals of Statistics, 4(6), 1236–1239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bar-Hillel, Y. (1964). Language and information: Selected essays on their theory and application. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  3. Bar-Hillel, Y., & Carnap, R. (1953). An outline of a theory of semantic information. rep. in Bar-Hillel (1964).Google Scholar
  4. Borlund, P. (2003). The concept of relevance in Ir. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 54(10), 913–925.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bowles, G. (1990). Propositional relevance. Informal Logic, 90, 65–77.Google Scholar
  6. Bremer, M., & Cohnitz, D. (2004). Information and information flow – An introduction. Frankfurt: Ontos Verlag.Google Scholar
  7. Choo, C. W., Detlor, B., & Turnbull, D. (2000). Web work: Information seeking and knowledge work on the world wide web. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, J. (1994). Some steps towards a general theory of relevance. Synthese, 101, 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Colburn, T. R. (2000). Philosophy and computer science. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  10. Cooper, W. S. (1971). A definition of relevance for information retrieval. Information Storage and Retrieval, 7, 19–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cover, T. M., & Thomas, J. A. (1991). Elements of information theory. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  12. Crestani, F., Lalmas, M., Van Rijsbergen, C. J., & Campbell, I. (1998). Is this document relevant?… Probably: A survey of probabilistic models in information retrieval. ACM Computing Surveys, 30(4), 528–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Delgrande, J. P., & Pelletier, J. (1998). A formal analysis of relevance. Erkenntnis, 49(2), 137–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Devlin, K. J. (1991). Logic and information. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dodig-Crnkovic, G. (2005). System modeling and information semantics. In J. Bubenko, O. Eriksson, H. Fernlund, & M. Lind (Eds.), Proceedings of the Fifth Promote IT Conference, Borlänge, Sweden. Studentlitteratur: Lund.Google Scholar
  16. Dodig-Crnkovic, G. (2006). Model validity and semantics of information. In L. Magnani (Ed.), Model-based reasoning. Science and engineering abduction, visualization, and simulation. London: King’s College Publications.Google Scholar
  17. Dongen, S. V. (2006). Prior specification in Bayesian statistics: Three cautionary tales. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 242(1), 90–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fetzer, J. H. (2004). Information, misinformation, and disinformation. Minds and Machines, 14(2), 223–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Floridi, L. (2004a). Information. In L. Floridi (Ed.), The Blackwell guide to the philosophy of computing and information (pp. 40–61). Oxford, New York: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Floridi, L. (2004b). Outline of a theory of strongly semantic information. Minds and Machines, 14(2), 197–222. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Floridi, L. (2005a). Semantic conceptions of information. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/information-semantic/.
  22. Floridi, L. (2005b). Is information meaningful data? Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 70(2), 351–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Floridi, L. (2006). The logic of being informed. Logique et Analyse, 49(196), 433–460.Google Scholar
  24. Floridi, L., & Sanders, J. W. (2004). The method of abstraction. In M. Negrotti (Ed.), Yearbook of the artificial-nature, culture and technology, models in contemporary sciences (pp. 177–220). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  25. Gaifman, H. (1988). A theory of higher-order probabilities. In B. Skyrms & W. Harper (Eds.), Causation, chance and credence. London, Ontario: University of Western Ontario Press.Google Scholar
  26. Gärdenfors, P. (1978). On the logic of relevance. Synthese, 37, 351–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Greisdorf, H. (2000). “Relevance: An interdisciplinary and information science perspective. Informing Science, 3(2), 67–71.Google Scholar
  28. Groenendijk, J. (2003). Questions and answers: Semantics and logic. In R. Bernardi & M. Moortgat (Eds.), 2nd Colognet-Elsnet Symposium – Questions and answers: Theoretical and applied perspectives. Amsterdam: OTS.Google Scholar
  29. Harsanyi, J. (1968). Games with incomplete information played by “Bayesian” Players – Parts 1, 2, 3. Management Science, 14, 159–182, 320–134, 486–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hintikka, J., & Suppes, P. (Eds.) (1970). Information and inference. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  31. Hitchcock, D. (1992). Relevance. Argumentation, 6(2), 251–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Israel, D., & Perry, J. (1990). What is information? In P. Hanson (Ed.), Information, language, and cognition. Vancouver: British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
  33. Jones, D. S. (1979). Elementary information theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  34. Kohlas, J. (2003), Information algebras: Generic structures for inference. London: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Lakemeyer, G. (1997). Relevance from an epistemic perspective. Artificial Intelligence, 97(1–2), 137–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. LePore, E., & Smith, B. C. (Eds.) (2006). The Oxford handbook of philosophy of language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  37. McCarthy, J., & Hayes, P. J. (1969). Some philosophical problems from the standpoint of artificial intelligence. In D. Michie & B. Meltzer (Eds.), Machine intelligence (pp. 463–502). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Mizzaro, S. (1996). Relevance: The whole (Hi)story. Technical Report UDMI/12/96/RR (Dec.) Dipartimento di Matematica e Informatica, Universita’ di Udine, Italy.Google Scholar
  39. Moser, P. K. (2002). The Oxford handbook of epistemology. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Polani, D., Martinetz, T., & Kim, J. T. (2001). An information-theoretic approach for the quantification of relevance. In J. Kelemen & P. Sosík (Eds.), Proceedings of the 6th European Conference on Advances in Artificial Life (pp. 704–713). Springer.Google Scholar
  41. Polani, D., Nehaniv, C., Martinetz, T., & Kim, J. (2006). Relevant information in optimized persistence vs. progeny strategies. In L. Rocha, L. Yaeger, M. Bedau, D. Floreano, R. Goldstone, & A. Vespignani (Eds.), Artificial Life X: Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on the Simulation and Synthesis of Living Systems (pp. 337–343). MIT.Google Scholar
  42. Saracevic, T. (1970). The concept of “relevance” in information science: A historical review. In T. Saracevic (Ed.), Introduction to information science. New York: Bower Company.Google Scholar
  43. Schroder, J. (1992). Korner’s criterion of relevance and analytic tableaux. Journal of Philosophical Logic, 21(2), 183–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Schutz, A. (1970). Reflections on the problem of relevance. In R. M. Zaner (Ed.), Annotated, and with an introduction. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Sequoiah-Grayson, S. forthcoming. The Metaphilosophy of Information. Minds and Machines.Google Scholar
  46. Shannon, C. E., & Weaver, W. (1949, rep. 1998). The mathematical theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  47. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995), Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Malden: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  48. Strawson, P. (1964). Identifying reference and truth-value.Theoria, 30, 96–118. Reprinted in P. Strawson, (1971). Logicolinguistic papers (pp. 75-95). London: Methuen. Google Scholar
  49. Subramanian, D., Greiner, R., & Pearl, J. (1997). The relevance of relevance. Artificial Intelligence, 97(1–2), 1–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tishby, N., Pereira, F., & Bialek, W. (1999). The information bottleneck method. In B. Hajek & R. S. Sreenivas (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control and Computing (pp. 368–377). The University of Illinois.Google Scholar
  51. Walton, D. N. (1991). Critical faults and fallacies of questioning. Journal of Pragmatics, 15, 337–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weingartner, P., & Schurz, G. (1986). Paradoxes solved by simple relevance criteria. Logique et Analyse, 29, 3–40.Google Scholar
  53. Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (2004). Relevance theory. In L. R. Horn, & G. L. Ward (Eds.), The handbook of pragmatics (pp. 607–632). Malden: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  54. Yus, F. (2006). Relevance theory online bibliographic service. http://www.ua.es/personal/francisco.yus/rt.html.
  55. Ziv, Y. (1988). On the rationality of “relevance” and the relevance of “rationality”. Journal of Pragmatics, 12, 535–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Philosophy, School of HumanitiesUniversity of HertfordshireHatfieldUK

Personalised recommendations