Philosophy of information. Social Sciences Essay.

Philosophy of Information
Name:
Course:
Date
Introduction
Communication refers to the act of conveying information from one person to another. For successful communication to occur, the intended information must be transferred effectively to the intended person or a group of people. Most often, a communication medium or channel is required to ensure that the receiver obtains the information sent by the sender. Besides, a channel is said to be effective if the conveyed information is not distorted, and clarity of the message is not lost. Most often, a communication channel adopted may successfully transfer the intended information but without clarity, which may promote ambiguity that tends to affect communication. This literature examines and explains why a communication channel that is sometimes unreliable is insufficient for knowledge, even in situations why it becomes reliable.
It is critical to comprehend that a channel that, in some situations, transmits misleading and unreliable information, should not be trusted. In most cases, if such medium is trusted by either the sender or the receiver, there are high chances that even in times when the message contained is correct, there are higher chances that they will not trust the contents of the message contained. Therefore, an uncertain communication channel cannot be adopted as a useful or reliable source of knowledge.
For example, using e-mail as a suitable channel for communication may not be regarded as a sufficient medium even if it transmits the intended information successfully. Ideally, the e-mail game would help in understanding why e-mail may sometimes become an unreliable medium of communication. For instance, when John writes an e-mail and proposes to meet Mary, and she confirms by writing electronically, and John receives the conformation. He understands that Mary knows his intentions for meeting her, but Mary may not understand whether John knows that she will be available. This is because Mary does not know if John has opened her confirmation e-mail. After opening the e-mail, it is clear that John does not know that Mary got and read the e-mail, and he, therefore, he does not know that Mary knows about his confirmation. In this instance, it is clear that common knowledge cannot be obtained through a series of e-mails. Additionally, common knowledge would be needed to ensure that both John and Mary are in epistemic states that guarantee certainty.[Mihnea C. Moldoveanu and Joel A.C. Baum. 2014. Epinets: The Epistemic Structure and Dynamics of Social Networks. Stanford University Press.]
It is, however, critical to comprehend that it is assumed that meetings that are successfully planned through electronic mails are considered commonplace. Therefore, they do not necessitate multiple confirmations. This is because there is common knowledge that e-mail, which is the communication channel, is sufficiently reliable, and with one confirmation, it is possible to establish an epistemic shortcut that substitutes full-common knowledge.[Mihnea C. Moldoveanu and Joel A.C. Baum. 2014. Epinets: The Epistemic Structure and Dynamics of Social Networks. Stanford University Press.]
From the example provided, in case John shows up at the appointed place and at th...