Life is too short for me to retype the longer earlier mail. (01)
Pat, (02)
It looks as if you are after an argument. I guess it would be impolite to
refuse. (03)
It seems to me that your argument should be extended to other specialists,
whose work requires some effort to understand. (04)
For example, there is a dangerous tendency, which (unfortunately) others in
these lists have not noted, for logical writings to be treated with a kind
of uncritical awe by non-logicians, so that they - the texts - are treated
with a reverence that they do not deserve. One should never forget that most
logicians work not by doing anything empirical or even by talking to people
who do anything empirical, but by reading and criticizing what other
logicians have written. The result can be rather in-bred, and indeed is
often so remote from the actual world that it is hard to even make any
sensible connection between the concerns of a good deal of logic (including
FOL) and anything in the real world at all. (05)
On the whole, I suggest, it is probably better to re-do ones own logic from
scratch than to try to read through the history of logic (not sure why one
should need to read the history) and sort out the very small fraction that
may be relevant. (06)
But, isn't the way ontological engineers use philosophy much like the way
most engineering disciplines use science (arcane, ivory tower science). (07)
BTW If one of your underlying points is that philosophers should not decide
what is relevant to ontological engineering for (e.g.) computer systems and
how it is used. I agree. Philosophy is not the relevant background. But then
scientists do not usually claim to tell engineers what to do. (08)
If this is a moan about the intellectual effort it takes to get useful stuff
out of the philosophy texts - I can see your point. But your proposed
solution seems to me to make the situation worse. (09)
Regards,
Chris (010)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@xxxxxxx]
>Sent: 18 June 2007 21:58
>To: Chris Partridge
>Cc: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Two
>
>>John,
>>
>>I am not too bothered about the name itself. However, one reason I would
>>suggest for being aware of the name, if not actually using it, is that so
>>much work has been done in (blue-sky, impractical) philosophy in
>rigorously
>>laying out the choices - and the name 'metaphysics' (or 'metaphysical
>>choices') points to this work. It would be a pity if people were not aware
>>of it.
>
>Well, I guess I agree and disagree. Obviously it
>is hard to argue with the proposition that it
>would be nice if people were aware of stuff. On
>the other hand, there is a dangerous tendency,
>which others in these lists have noted, for
>philosophical writings to be treated with a kind
>of uncritical awe by non-philosophers, so that
>they - the texts - are treated with a reverence
>that they do not deserve. One should never forget
>that most philosophers work not by doing anything
>empirical or even by talking to people who do
>anything empirical, but by reading and
>criticizing what other philosophers have written.
>The result can be rather in-bred, and indeed is
>often so remote from the actual world that it is
>hard to even make any sensible connection between
>the concerns of a good deal of philosophy
>(including metaphysics) and anything in the real
>world at all. Recent debates about twin-Earth,
>Mary the color expert and zombies provide a host
>of examples.
>
>On the whole, I suggest, it is probably better to
>re-do ones own metaphysics from scratch than to
>try to read through the history of philosophy and
>sort out the very small fraction that may be
>relevant. Just be aware of a few common mental
>traps, such as not making the use/mention
>confusion, and you should do OK.
>
>Pat
>
>>Regards,
>>Chris
>>
>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>>>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
>>>Sent: 16 June 2007 13:38
>>>To: [ontolog-forum]
>>>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Two ontologiesthat areinconsistent but
>>>bothneeded
>>>
>>>Chris,
>>>
>>>I would suggest dropping the word "metaphysical" because many
>>>people confuse that word with blue-sky theory that has no
>>>practical applications.
>>>
>>>CP> It seems to me that these choices are metaphysical, in the
>>> > sense that no amount of empirical data can decide the issue.
>>>
>>>There are four very strong kinds of constraints:
>>>
>>> 1. Language (which encodes many generations of what people
>>> call "common sense"): Do the categories of the ontology
>>> have a smooth mapping to and from the way people talk
>>> about the subject?
>>>
>>> 2. Science: Can the categories be mapped consistently to and
>>> from the best empirical evidence as codified in well tested
>>> scientific theories? (This is essentially refined common
>>> sense supported by instrumentation that extends and enhances
>>> the human senses.)
>>>
>>> 3. Logic: Are the categories compatible, in the sense that
>>> they can fit together in a consistent description of the
>>> subject matter of interest?
>>>
>>> 4. Applications: Do the categories cover all the available
>>> data that is relevant to the subject matter?
>>>
>>>Those four constraints characterize good metaphysics, and it
>>>takes a lot of very hard work to satisfy all four of them.
>>>
>>>What gives the word 'metaphysical' bad connotations is laziness
>>>on the part of people who write down a bunch of symbols without
>>>testing them in sufficient detail against all four constraints.
>>>
>>>John
>>>
>>>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>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
>>>
>>>
>>>No virus found in this incoming message.
>>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>>Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.17/850 - Release Date:
>15/06/2007
>> >11:31
>>>
>>
>>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>>Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.8.17/850 - Release Date: 15/06/2007
>>11:31
>>
>>
>>
>>_________________________________________________________________
>>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
>>
>
>
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home
>40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
>Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
>FL 32502 (850)291 0667 cell
>phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
>
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.0/853 - Release Date: 18/06/2007
>15:02
> (011)
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 269.9.1/854 - Release Date: 19/06/2007
13:12 (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|