[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Re: OWL and lack of identifiers

To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Ingvar Johansson <ingvar.johansson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2007 10:56:47 +0200
Message-id: <462DC64F.1010805@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Steve Newcomb schrieb:
> Waclaw Kusnierczyk <Waclaw.Marcin.Kusnierczyk@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> 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.
> This is my feeling, too.  It's an awful lot to swallow, I know, but I
> think, in general, it's deeply correct to recognize, always and
> everywhere, that everything we think and do is rooted in culture.  In
> our own culture, FOL is a fixture, no doubt about it.  (And I'm not
> interested in replacing it.  I just don't want to close off
> alternatives about which I currently know nothing.)
> [ John Sowa:]
>>>> 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.
> [ Steve Newcomb:]
>>> 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.
> I would add to my above remark that, while it's true that "variations
> in the notations and terminologies" could obscure the hoped-for
> invariants, these same cultural variations could just as easily
> obscure the fact that there are *no* invariants.  When it comes to a
> question that cannot have an objective answer, we must fall back on
> other things.  I think habits are what we fall back on, most of the
> time.
>       (01)

A century ago "psychologism" in relation to logic and mathematics had 
become a prominent philosophical position. It was acutely and heavily 
criticized by Gottlob Frege and Edmund Husserl. Today's corresponding 
"culturalism" in relation to logic and mathematics has merely exchanged 
individual minds for culturally steeped minds. Since the argumentation 
is structurally similar, Frege's and Husserl's defenses apply even 
today. However, there is a shorter route  to the truth: read the chapter 
on logic in Thomas Nagel's "The Last Word" (1997).    (02)

Ingvar J    (03)

Ingvar Johansson
IFOMIS, Saarland University
     home site: http://ifomis.org/
     personal home site:
     http://hem.passagen.se/ijohansson/index.html      (04)

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    (05)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>