[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Two ontologies that are inconsistent but bothneeded

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Smith, Barry" <phismith@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2007 13:07:09 -0500
Message-id: <20070614215903.XBWJ15873.mta10.adelphia.net@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
At 04:51 PM 6/10/2007, you wrote:    (01)

>I believe I am not.  The issue is simply that you can't reasonably ask
>whether X is a continuant or an occurrent (the metaphysical distinction)
>if the term 'X' is used with meanings corresponding to both sides of the
>distinction, and you do not make clear which is the meaning you use.    (02)

BS:In my original response to Pat I had this:    (03)

>Avalanche theory is based on the distinction
>between granular layers (continuants) and flows
>(which when summed together make the avalanches themselves).    (04)

The moral is: if faced with a single word, you sometimes cannot tell 
whether it refers to a continuant or an occurrent; in such a case, 
you should look at what scientists with expertise in the 
corresponding domain believe; encouragingly, they very often seem to 
have developed sophisticated theories, as here, resting on an 
oh-so-clear distinction between continuants and occurrents.
BS    (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)

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