Steve Newcomb wrote:
> "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Steve,
>>
>> I agree to a certain extent:
>>
>> SN> I guess I'm saying that, at bottom, all solutions are
>> > ad hoc solutions; no one solution is the Holy Grail.
>>
>> But there are patterns and invariants that enable translations
>> from one ad hoc solution to another. Those invariants are the
>> landmarks or signposts that make it possible to find order
>> in the chaos.
>
> As for me, I doubt that there's anything invariant about the soup, and
> I suspect that whatever may appear to be invariant cannot be relied
> upon to remain so. (Except of course in the simplest cases.) (01)
Even the basic elements of logic are may not be invariants. Take the
case of FOL; various logics other than FOL extend it rather than try to
modify not necessarily because FOL is invariantly correct, but because
it is so firmly established. (02)
> Over two decades of experience with SGML, much of it in government
> work, tells me that the internal inconsistency of data resources
> increases more or less as a function of their semantic richness and
> their sizes. My own attitude is that electronic data processing can
> greatly aid, but is no substitute for, human alertness, or for
> sensitivity to the context from which any given datum has emanated.
>
> I'd always rather have a human being tell me what some expression
> means, than any machine. (For my money, machines don't have a clue.)
>
>> > Benefits accrue to us when we face up to the fact that
>> > endlessly diverse ad-hockeries are a fact of life, and
>> > one that we'd better learn to deal with efficiently.
>>
>> I also agree, and that is one of the major themes of my
>> article on knowledge soup:
>>
>> http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/challenge.pdf
>> The Challenge of Knowledge Soup
>>
>> Logic is the discipline that has been searching for those
>> underlying invariants. But those invariants are often
>> obscured by variations in the notations and terminologies.
>
> I agree that the search is vitally important, now more than ever, and
> I admire your contributions to that search. The only thing I object
> to about your position is its apparent implication that there is some
> higher Truth or Absoluteness (note capital letters indicating numinous
> significance) in any logic or logical system -- even if it's Logic. (03)
It is hard for us to imagine what happens within the dark holes, how
there could be no time (before time 'began'), and it may just be too
hard for us to imagine a world in which Logic would not be an invariant.
That humans cannot imagine something is only an empirical proof of its
unimaginability by humans, not of its inexistence. (04)
vQ (05)
> Knowledge management is primarily a *humanistic* endeavor. Every
> logic is man-made, period. As a model, it works exactly as well as it
> works, and it fails exactly where it fails.
>
> The very character of knowledge itself is highly variable. I once
> heard you say that data that aren't processable by logic are useless.
> I'm still reacting to that statement. (You see how impressionable I
> am when you speak!) In fact, it all depends on what you mean by
> "logic". Indeed, if we ignore all data that don't strictly conform to
> some particular "logic", whatever we might mean by that term, very
> little remains. Give me a rule, and I'll show you an exception.
>
> I think it's better to recognize that there's no Logic; there's only
> Culture. True, some cultures are more sophisticated and powerful than
> others, and no culture is more sophisticated or powerful than the
> worldwide one that pursues scientific advancement. But it would be
> the very height of hubris to assume that nothing else has any value.
> Ironically, Darwin's scientific insights have led Science itself to
> the opposite conclusion: that all kinds of variability, including
> variations with no immediate or obvious utility, are in fact essential
> to survival.
>
> In my own gut, at least, I feel quite confident that cultural
> diversity has enormous survival value. The stones that the builders
> cast aside will, at least occasionally, turn out to be the
> cornerstones, or maybe even the keystones. Science cannot explain
> everything, and when we think it will, we engage in naive idolatry.
>
>> That is why we have been developing the ISO standard for
>> Common Logic (which is currently in the FDIS stage):
>>
>> http://www.common-logic.org
>> Common Logic Standard
>>
>> The body of the standard uses an abstract syntax to avoid
>> endorsing any specific notation. The annexes specify three
>> very different concrete dialects that capture the full CL
>> semantics. But many other versions of logic (including
>> RDF(S) and OWL) can be treated as dialects of Common Logic
>> that express a subset of the semantics.
>>
>> I won't claim that CL is the final solution, but it serves
>> as one example of how to find order in the chaos. I also
>> admit that there is a lot more work to be done.
>
> John, in fact we apparently agree about everything important. (:^)
>
> -- Steve
>
> Steven R. Newcomb, Consultant
> Coolheads Consulting
>
> Co-editor, Topic Maps International Standard (ISO/IEC 13250)
> Co-editor, draft Topic Maps -- Reference Model (ISO/IEC 13250-5)
>
> srn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://www.coolheads.com
>
> direct: +1 540 951 9773
> main: +1 540 951 9774
> fax: +1 540 951 9775
>
> 208 Highview Drive
> Blacksburg, Virginia 24060 USA
>
>
> (Confidential to all US government personnel to whom this private
> letter is not addressed and who are reading it in the absence of a
> specific search warrant: In keeping with the publicly-confessed
> criminal conduct of the Bush administration, and with the
> irresponsible actions of the pusillanimous and corrupt 109th Congress,
> you are co-conspiring to subvert the Constitution that you are sworn
> to defend. You can either refuse to commit this crime, or you can
> expect to suffer criminal sanctions in the future, when the Executive
> Branch of the government of the United States of America once again
> demonstrates respect for the rule of law. I do not envy you for
> having to make this difficult choice, but I urge you to make it
> wisely.)
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (06)
--
Wacek Kusnierczyk (07)
------------------------------------------------------
Department of Information and Computer Science (IDI)
Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)
Sem Saelandsv. 7-9
7027 Trondheim
Norway (08)
tel. 0047 73591875
fax 0047 73594466
------------------------------------------------------ (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|