Re: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Reality and Truth

["Deborah MacPherson" <debmacp@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Patrick and John - 

I'm interested in both beauty and formality and see them as complimentary. To clarify, I am not looking for an example as direct as A become B or talking about religion in particular  - more interested in dynamic models of information changing its perceived accuracy and value. May I refer you to the map "
History Flow Visualization of the Wikipedia Entry on Evolution" by M. Wattenberg and F. Viegas in the 2nd iteration of Places & Spaces at the New York Public Library last year. 

What grabbed my attention with Johns example before and also a few weeks ago with scientific ideas falling in and out of favor - even being systematically blocked - are the implications for digital preservation and accurate search results today. I'm working on drawings with an informal specification for recording the ways any type of information from a piece of data to entire trends of thought can be assumed to be correct one minute and proven wrong the next. How can recycling versus "throwing in the trash forever" processes be used to keep compressed, remote, record copies of old ideas while (at least appearing to) remove outdated or just plain wrong information from current resources? Particularly interested in publicly accessible information online. 

Should your proposed logical specification of terms be its own page within the wiki? Would any one be interested in working on showing dynamic terms to and from various topics so particular areas could be also used to confirm talking about the same thing?

Debbie

-- 

*************************************************
Deborah L. MacPherson
Specifier, WDG Architecture PLLC
Projects Director, Accuracy&Aesthetics

**************************************************

On 5/2/07, Cassidy, Patrick J. <pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Debbie -

 Not sure how formal your work needs to be, but Richard Dawkins in his book "The God Delusion" has reclassified all discourses on theology as "meaningless nonsense".  Does that fit?

 

In the event that we want to further discuss meanings of terms on this list, it might best serve our purposes if each of us produces a logical specification of the terms as we understand them, and proceed from there to discuss the differences thus exposed.

 

Pat

 

Patrick Cassidy

CNTR-MITRE

260 Industrial Way West

Eatontown NJ 07724

Eatontown: 732-578-6340

Cell: 908-565-4053

pcassidy@xxxxxxxxx

 

---

From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Deborah MacPherson
Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2007 10:13 AM
To: John F. Sowa
Cc: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Reality and Truth

Hi John,

Will look at the book. What I'm asking for may not exist but very generally - I'm curious about existing work on classifying information for reuse/further interpretation versus archiving or even better, purging all together when more relevant and complete information becomes available.

Debbie

On 5/2/07, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Debbie,

I'm not sure what you're asking for:

> Do you know of any examples reclassifying previously
> valuable high ranking information to "TRASH IT".

But it is certainly true that people constantly classify
information (and the things they refer to) in ways that
have all kinds of political implications.

Following is a book with lots of good illustrations of
that point:

    Schiappa, Edward (2003) _Defining Reality:  Definitions
    and the Politics of Meaning_, Southern Illinois
    University Press, Carbondale.

A quotation from that book:

    "When are definitions political?  Always."

One of Schiappa's examples is the word 'wetlands', whose
definition is a political football -- being kicked around
by every conceivable special-interest group.

The definition depends on whether you're a real-estate
developer, a biologist, a conservationist, or a politician.
If the latter, the definition depends not only on the
political party, but on the location of the politician's
district upstream, downstream, or next to the "wetlands".
Many of the definitions seem to be innocuous, but they have
subtle implications that can be exploited in creative ways.

John

--

*************************************************
Deborah L. MacPherson
Specifier, WDG Architecture PLLC
Projects Director, Accuracy&Aesthetics

**************************************************

_________________________________________________________________
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

_________________________________________________________________
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)