We live to breathe information. That is to say, we live not only to breathe air but also information. With proper information given, our life would be easier. And this is why we learn. We learn and research to earn information, which surely returns so that we can benefit from it. This is why reading is so strongly recommended by so many wise people. You can succeed with information. Go ahead!
ㅡㅡ
I think your passage expresses a simple but important philosophy:
We do not live by physical necessities alone. We also live by information.
There is a deep idea behind this.
We breathe air because our bodies need oxygen.
Likewise, we continually receive information because our minds need knowledge to make decisions. Every day we use information to choose what to eat, where to go, whom to trust, how to solve problems, and how to understand the world.
That is why learning is so valuable. It is not merely collecting facts. It is acquiring information that improves judgment and helps us act more wisely. Good information can save time, prevent mistakes, create opportunities, and sometimes even save lives.
I especially like your sequence:
We learn and research to earn information, which surely returns so that we can benefit from it.
It emphasizes that information is not an end in itself. Its value lies in how it comes back to us through better decisions, better understanding, and better actions.
One point I would add is this:
Not all information is equally valuable.
The challenge today is no longer simply obtaining information. We are surrounded by more information than any previous generation. The greater challenge is identifying reliable, relevant, and meaningful information. That is where critical thinking, good retrieval systems, and careful evaluation become essential.
So I would summarize your idea like this:
Human beings live by both air and information. Air sustains the body; information sustains the mind. By learning, reading, and researching, we acquire information that returns to us as better understanding, wiser decisions, and greater opportunities. The better the quality of the information we choose, the greater the benefit it can bring.
ㅡㅡㅡㅡ
This is the essence of information science, which in turn should be everybody’s concern. It should stand alone, regardless of librarianship and computer science. It is the science of all the population. Therefore this should be fair enough. Unfair science is not worth information science, which is over all the other sciences, by definition.
ㅡㅡ
I think this expresses a normative vision of information science rather than a universally accepted definition. As a vision, it is coherent and worth discussing on its own terms.
Several parts are especially strong.
First, the idea that information science concerns everyone, not only librarians or computer scientists. I agree with that. Every person seeks, evaluates, communicates, and uses information throughout life. In that sense, information science has broad human importance.
Second, the idea that information science should have its own identity. Historically, the field grew from several traditions, including librarianship, documentation, computer science, linguistics, psychology, and communication studies. Many scholars today regard it as an interdisciplinary field rather than simply a branch of any one of those disciplines. So it is reasonable to argue that it deserves to stand on its own intellectual foundations.
Where I would be more careful is with the statement:
“Information science is over all the other sciences, by definition.”
I would express that differently.
Rather than saying it is above the other sciences, I would say:
Information science cuts across all the sciences because every scientific discipline depends on creating, organizing, communicating, retrieving, evaluating, and using information.
That is a very strong claim, and it is easier to defend historically and philosophically. Physics, biology, history, medicine, economics—all rely on information processes.
On fairness, I think your principle is an important ethical one:
If information science is concerned with helping people obtain and evaluate knowledge, then it should itself strive to be fair, open to criticism, and guided by evidence rather than by prestige or institutional interest.
That is an aspiration that most scientists, whatever their field, would recognize as valuable. Of course, real scientific communities do not always live up to that ideal, which is why transparency, replication, open debate, and historical re-examination remain important.
So I would summarize your philosophy this way:
Information science is a human science because every person lives by information. It should serve all people, draw on many disciplines without belonging exclusively to any one of them, and pursue knowledge fairly so that better information leads to better understanding and better decisions.
ㅡㅡㅡㅡ
The first principle of information science is that it is based on fairness or justice. Do you know any other sciences claim such a first principle?
ㅡㅡ
This is an interesting philosophical question.
If you mean:
“Is there any established science whose first principle is fairness or justice?”
then my answer is:
No, not in the same way.
Most sciences begin with principles about their subject matter, not with an ethical principle.
For example:
- Physics begins with principles about matter, energy, and natural laws.
- Biology begins with living organisms and evolution.
- Chemistry begins with substances and their interactions.
- Economics studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods; fairness is an important topic within economics, but not its first principle.
- Computer science begins with computation and algorithms, not justice.
Even sciences closely connected with people do not usually make fairness their first principle.
For example:
- Medicine has strong ethical traditions (“do no harm”), but medicine as a science studies health and disease. Medical ethics is a related field.
- Law is deeply concerned with justice, but law is generally regarded as a professional and normative discipline rather than a natural science.
So your proposal is unusual.
However, I would make one distinction.
If you define information science as:
the science that helps people obtain, communicate, evaluate, and use information,
then fairness is probably better described as its guiding ethical principle, rather than its scientific first principle.
Why? Because scientific first principles usually describe what exists or how the subject behaves, whereas fairness describes how we ought to conduct the science and how its systems ought to serve people.
That does not make fairness less important. In fact, with AI and search systems, fairness has become increasingly central:
- fair access to information,
- fair representation of evidence,
- fair ranking,
- fair attribution,
- fair treatment of users,
- fair recognition of earlier contributions.
These are major concerns today.
So I would say your proposal is not a conventional definition of information science, but it is a distinctive philosophical foundation:
Because information science exists to help people acquire and use knowledge, it should be guided first by fairness in the creation, organization, retrieval, evaluation, and communication of information.
That is a normative principle. Whether one accepts it as the first principle is open to debate, but it is certainly an original and thought-provoking way to frame the field.
ㅡㅡㅡㅡ
There are so many dirty games going on under the disguise of science. I am sick and tired of that sort of things. Therefore I cry: fakirness first and good science would follow!
ㅡㅡ
I understand the feeling behind what you’re saying.
If by “fakirness” you meant “fairness,” then your slogan is:
“Fairness first, and good science will follow.”
That is a clear ethical principle.
History does show that science is conducted by people, and people are capable of bias, rivalry, favoritism, neglect, and competition. Cases involving priority disputes, failures of recognition, and institutional incentives have occurred in many fields. At the same time, science has also developed mechanisms—peer criticism, replication, open publication, and historical re-evaluation—to try to correct those problems, even if imperfectly.
I think your statement is strongest when it is expressed as a positive principle rather than as a judgment about everyone else. For example:
Science serves humanity best when fairness comes first. Fair recognition of evidence, openness to criticism, honest attribution, and willingness to reconsider accepted views are the conditions under which good science can flourish.
That is a principle many researchers, even those who disagree about particular historical cases, could support.
It also connects naturally with your broader philosophy of information science. If information science is about helping people find and evaluate knowledge, then fairness is not only an ethical virtue—it also improves the quality of the information people receive. A retrieval system, a review process, or a historical account that is systematically unfair is less trustworthy and less useful.
So I think the slogan:
“Fairness first, and good science will follow.”
works well as a guiding ideal. The challenge, as always, is turning that ideal into practices that make scientific work more transparent, more evidence-based, and more willing to correct its own mistakes.
ㅡㅡㅡㅡ
Information science is fairest and purest so that it is worth everybody’s necessity.
ㅡㅡ
That is a powerful philosophical statement. I would only make it a little more careful so that it is easier to defend.
Instead of saying:
“Information science is fairest and purest…”
I would say:
“Information science should be among the fairest and purest sciences because its purpose is to help everyone obtain, understand, and use information.”
The difference is important.
- Saying “is” makes it a factual claim about the current state of the field.
- Saying “should be” makes it a guiding principle or ideal.
The second version is easier to support because it expresses what the discipline ought to strive for.
Your underlying idea is this:
- Every person needs information.
- Information science exists to improve how people obtain and use information.
- Therefore, information science has a special responsibility to be fair, because unfair information harms everyone.
That is a coherent ethical argument.
I would summarize it like this:
Information science should be one of the fairest and purest sciences because it serves a universal human need. Every person depends on information to learn, make decisions, and understand the world. If the science devoted to information is not fair, the quality of knowledge available to society is diminished.
I think that is a strong philosophical foundation. It is not a definition accepted by everyone, but it is a clear vision of what information science ought to aspire to.
ㅡㅡㅡㅡ
Metascience is science of science. Naturally, information science has a metascientific nature.
ㅡㅡ
Yes, I think there is a reasonable argument there, with one important distinction.
Metascience studies science itself—for example:
- how research is conducted,
- how scientific knowledge grows,
- reproducibility,
- publication,
- peer review,
- citation,
- evaluation of research.
Information science studies information: how it is created, organized, communicated, retrieved, evaluated, and used.
The two overlap in an important way.
Science depends on information. Scientists produce papers, cite earlier work, search the literature, evaluate evidence, and communicate results. All of these are information processes.
So information science has a metascientific dimension because it helps us understand and improve the information system on which science depends.
For example:
- Bibliometrics studies scientific publications.
- Citation analysis studies scientific influence and relationships.
- Scholarly information retrieval helps scientists find relevant work.
- Research information systems organize scientific knowledge.
These are both information science and metascience.
However, I would not say that all of information science is metascience.
Information science also concerns:
- public libraries,
- business information,
- health information,
- legal information,
- education,
- archives,
- AI and search systems for the general public.
Those areas extend beyond science itself.
So I would put it this way:
Information science has an inherently metascientific nature because one of its central roles is to study and improve the information processes through which science creates, communicates, retrieves, and evaluates knowledge. At the same time, information science is broader than metascience because it serves all domains of human information, not science alone.
ㅡㅡㅡㅡ
2026-07-19 Mark Park
Our Library 