|
All -
Apologetic Clarification:
I am not using "Lethal" as an adverb to describe what we do, but as an adjective to describe our powerfully collective "minds" in an intended provocative mash-up so that we would start the very discussion that we have started here. We ontologists seem to choke on the very words that we enjoy. We can certainly change the adjective. Enter the contest with your favorite choice. My attempt was aimed for a noun phrase that leads to "Thinking that could rock the world"
Total Agreement:
I certainly hope that our choice of words will have implications and consequences on representation and inference and behaviour. My language is my land that I will not sell.
Minor Addition:
As part of the real challenge in collaborative decision making projects NOT ONLY do we have to largely overcome verbal, opinions and views conflicts with folks BUT WE ALSO have to overcome these challenges with folks you DON"T KNOW and may never know outside of the collaborative environment.
Modest Proposal:
One on the great things about Wikipedia is their NPOV "Neutral Point Of View" contract. Can we benefit from something similar??
I will go back to lurking as Peter calls it.
k
-------------- Original message --------------
From: paola.dimaio@xxxxxxxxx
Hi Chris
There's nothing wrong with an argument, especially if it's about relevance
(welcome to yet another central problem of ontology engineering)
This conversation started because K goodier proposed we all jump in to do something 'lethal' together (hr...), and I reflected on the choice of words and felt discomfort. Do I really want to do something lethal with K? dont think so. ( I dont even know him in fact)
Re. philosophy, dont worry about that. I can understand that it requires a different angle than your view may offer, ( philosophy exists nonetheless, and uderpins science, business, education etc, you may decide to include it or exclude it in your model of reality). You do seem to produce your own bit of philosophy however.
Relevance to this thread is: does the choice
of words have implications and consequences
on representation and inference and behaviour? I think it does and in a collaborative work today, as discussed earlier, technology is relatively trivial in comparison to other conflics arising from different conceptual and semantic views and interpretations.
The real challenge in collaborative decision making projects to me is largely overcoming verbal, opinions and views conflicts. T
But if reality is mostly in our heads, the whole exercise of
ontological engineering is, by my admittedly dim lights, by
definition impossible (hence, obviously, pointless), as the idea of
*shared* meaning implies something outside of our heads about which
we can both agree. If we each have only our own (inherently private)
realities, then the jig is up; there is no *common* world that our
ontologies are *about*.
No. In my understanding (limited viewpoint) 'exists in the mind', means that personal understanding and perspective on reality is relative, and depends on what books you have been reading, the things you believe, and where are coming from, the dim light that you are under, and lots and lots of other conditions.
That includes our respective opinions on what ontology engineering is about.
(I can see the challenge of collaborative decision making more more clearly)
We've go
tta to live with that I am afraid...
(Q.E.D)
Cheers
P
á½?Ï?εÏ? á¼?δει δεá¿?ξαι
On 1/19/07, Christopher Menzel < cmenzel@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Greetings Paola,
> I am not going to fuel this argument however I realise I need to
> defend my statement, at least briefly.
I wasn't arguing, I just had no idea what you were talking about and
asked for clarification.
> First, a definition. Please read constructive in a broader sense of
> the word, and not solely as indicating the relevant philosophical,
> mathematical, art schools of thought
Understood.
> As to your evaluation, he key, as you well know, is context, as
> well as your own personal perspective
>
> The term 'lethal' applied in medical context has different meaning
> than in social science context.
Welcome to the central problem of ontological engineering. :-)
> A lethal dose or lethal substance is a statement of a medical fact,
>> Naming a tool, enviroment or methodology 'lethal' in my world is
> making implicit statement
> about its destructive nature.
True enough. Can't off the top of my head see what that's any reason
to avoid the term if one wishes to emphasize the destructive nature
of a tool, environment or methodology. But this is not really to the
point.
> (which in turn I distinguish from disruptive, but I am not going to
> bore you with that)
>
> But of course if you do not abstract the term from the context that
> is most familiar to you,
> you will not see the negative implication in using the word
> 'lethal' - and that would simply reflect
> constructivist in this sense, perhaps
> (philosophical perspective derived from the work of Immanuel Kant
> which views reality as existing mainly in the mind, constructed or
> interpreted in terms of one's
own perceptions. Note: In this
> perspective, an individual's prior experiences, mental structures,
> and beliefs bear upon how experiences are interpreted)
Ok. For the record, I think that, generally, the more that
philosophy gets injected into ontological engineering, especially
(but not only) by non-philosophers, the more muddled the enterprise
becomes. And of all philosophical perspectives, an idealist focus
that has reality "existing mainly in the mind" seems to me to be
downright toxic for ontological engineering, as it renders it utterly
pointless. The basic philosophical standpoint of ontological
engineering -- insofar as it has such a standpoint at all -- is a
sort of commonsense realism: that there is an objective external
world in which we live and move and have our being and make our
automobiles and fight our wars and transact our business and treat
our illnesses, and that we can *fi
x* the meanings of the languages we
use to describe the various salient pieces of that world in a
rigorous, objective, shareable, computationally representable way.
But if reality is mostly in our heads, the whole exercise of
ontological engineering is, by my admittedly dim lights, by
definition impossible (hence, obviously, pointless), as the idea of
*shared* meaning implies something outside of our heads about which
we can both agree. If we each have only our own (inherently private)
realities, then the jig is up; there is no *common* world that our
ontologies are *about*.
In f
--- Begin Message ---
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)
--- End Message ---
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (01)
|