ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] confounded models

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Gary Berg-Cross" <gary.berg-cross@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 10:13:02 -0400
Message-id: <330E3C69AFABAE45BD91B28F80BE32C90104D5F0@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


Kathy, Pat    (01)

Your suggestion seems sensible -
 that biologists writing a text have thought processes that are
logically consistent  to the 
degree that they could be formalized as Tarskian models of a set of
axioms.    (02)

However, at any give time science may have alternative explanations
about phenomena so we'd have to formalize these also and they are
competing theories of truth.      (03)

Something like "snow is white" "snow is grey" (when it's in the road for
a while),  etc.    (04)

Pat argued on this topic of Biologists and Tarskian models >"They may
not know about them, but they can still >be thinking about  them.  Just
as someone who >knows nothing of botany can think about plants."    (05)

But given Kathy's idea of logical consistency, doesn't it become
important that someone who knows about Botony is likely to be thinking
more consistently than some non-Botanist thinking about plants?  Could
be anyone.  Are they all Tarskian at heart?    (06)

Gary Berg-Cross, Ph.D.
Spatial Ontology Community of Practice (SOCoP)
http://www.visualknowledge.com/wiki/socop
Executive Secretariat
Semantic Technology
EM&I 
Suite 350  455 Spring park Place
Herndon VA  20170
703-742-0585    (07)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Kathryn
Blackmond Laskey
Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2007 9:51 AM
To: [ontolog-forum] 
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] confounded models    (08)

At 5:44 PM -0500 7/16/07, Pat Hayes wrote:
>On Jul 16, 2007, at 5:20 PM, Gary Berg-Cross wrote:
>
>>  Pat, Barry
>>
>>  Most authors who write biology text books don't know about, or 
>>  aren't thinking about Taskian models.
>
>They may not know about them, but they can still be thinking about 
>them.  Just as someone who knows nothing of botany can think about
>plants.    (09)

I don't think it's correct to say they "really are" thinking about 
Tarskian models even if they don't know about them.  However, it is 
the case that their thought processes are logically consistent to the 
degree that they could be formalized as Tarskian models of a set of 
axioms.    (010)

_________________________________________________________________
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    (011)


_________________________________________________________________
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    (012)

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