KCliffer@xxxxxxx schrieb:
> Ingvar,
>
> I think I am in agreement with you on most of your points, insofar as
> I understand them, except for the one about why bring in epistemology.
....
>
> My concern was that in an effort to make an ontology for some type of
> indexing of knowledge (applied ontology, as opposed to philosophical
> ontology??), we should be aware of a vast universe of propositions and
> knowledge for which this will be difficult or impossible, given the
> difficulty even ascertaining what the propositions are. (01)
O.K., I have taken it for granted that everyone is aware of this; at
least I am. But I would like to add one thing: in engineering it is hard
to tell what is *completely* impossible to do before many clever men and
women have tried to do the impossible. (02)
>
> One question was about the degree to which this concern is relevant to
> the endeavor. If it's relevant at all, another question might be about
> how to maintain perspective on the endeavor - build it somehow into
> the structure and use of an ontology - in light of the concern. For
> example, the frontier of definition and agreement on propositions
> shifts, perhaps even on previously asserted propositions - how can
> this be handled, if it should? (03)
Since we are fallibilists in matters of both epistemology and
communication, I think we should draw the conclusion that *very little*
can be done on a *general philosophical level* of epistemology and
semantics, but that *very much* can be done in each and every *concrete
case* where we need more knowledge and/or want to reduce
misunderstandings in communication. (04)
Ingvar (05)
_________________________________________________________________
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)
|