Pat, (01)
We've gone over this issue again and again over the past
many years: (02)
PC> The issue is whether we can have a single self-consistent
> foundation ontology that can be used to define all other
> ontologies. (03)
And we've always come back to exactly the same answer: (04)
1. Yes, it is possible to have a large umbrella ontology,
*provided that* it has very few detailed axioms. (05)
2. But all detailed axioms must be put into the special
purpose theories that enable detailed reasoning for
specialized applications. (06)
PC> I do not have any concern with contradictory models used
> in scientific theories, because as you note, we all know
> that these are approximations... (07)
Every accepted theory in science is an *approximation* --
that is the fundamental principle of science -- everything
that we think we know is potentially falsifiable. (08)
PC> ... theories useful in particular circumstances, not as
> the **final and only** model of reality. (09)
Please write the following statement on the blackboard (or
the whiteboard) one thousand times: (010)
There is not and never will be a final and only model of reality. (011)
How many times do we have to keep repeating the obvious? (012)
John (013)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (014)
|