Philosophers are motivated to do research concerning pattern recognition because of wide range of its applications. One of the pathfi nders of research in that area was Satosi Watanabe, who has been frequently commented in the literature concerning this subject. The rule of decrease in entropy and the rule of simplicity are described in the context of pattern recognition. Although the concept of entropy had been initially used in the area of thermodynamics, it could be adopted also in the fi eld of pattern recognition. The concept of entropy should be then suitable transformed. A few of examples of the entropy concept application and the relationship between entropy and simplicity are discussed in the article. Simplicity considered by Watanabe should be treated mainly as polynomial curve simplicity, however the issue is described in the wider context.
The main goal of this article is to characterise and compare some aspects of Hilary Putnam’s referential theory of meaning and Robert B. Brandom’s inferential theory of meaning. I will do it to indicate some similarities and differences in these theories. It will provide an opportunity for a deeper understanding of these theories and for a more adequate evaluation of how they describe and explain the process of meaning acquisition of linguistic expressions. In his theory of meaning Putnam emphasises the importance of reference understood as a relationship which connects linguistic expressions and extra-linguistic (empirical) reality. Brandom acknowledges inference as a main category useful in characterising the meaning of expressions used in premises and a conclusion of inference. But his theory of meaning is criticised for minimalising the role of an empirical component (demonstratives etc.). He tries to defend his standpoint in the anaphoric theory of reference. Putnam like Brandom claimed that we – as cognitive subjects – are not in a situation in which we learn about the extra-linguistic reality in a direct way. It is the reality itself as well as our cognitive apparatus that play a role in a cognitive process.
The article presents a comparative analysis of various classifi cations of both sciences’ and management sciences’ paradigms in terms of their pragmatism and adequacy regarding organization research. Furthermore, the aim of the article is also to justify the thesis about the high usefulness of research model proposed by Keneth D. Strang. Strang’s model, based on the concept of researcher’s socio-cultural philosophy, allows on the one hand to overcome the theoretical incommensurability and on the other hand makes it possible for representatives of various paradigms to cooperate with each other. The article contains also refl ections on the paradigm as a key factor affecting both the development of management sciences and the practice of management. The choice of a specifi c paradigm, i.e. research ideology, has a decisive impact on the results of research, as well as the generalization of practice. The paradigm defi nes the research strategy, selection of research methods and inference rules. Furthermore, it infl uences the education process, and thus has an impact on shaping the worldview of scientists, entrepreneurs as well as managers.