>[JS] [Peirce] made the point that all of our so-called knowledge is
>fallible, but some aspects are better established than others.
>Scientists have achieved some very close correspondences
>between language (or other sign systems) and some aspects of
>reality, but a complete and perfect correspondence is a goal
>that may take humanity (and whatever species they may evolve
>into or be replaced by) an open-ended amount of time. (01)
[KL] What assurance do we have that complete and perfect
correspondence is possible? If not complete and perfect
correspondence, then what degree of correspondence is possible? What
degree of correspondence is necessary for the purpose? (02)
Those are far from trivial questions. The answers depend vitally on
what might be called the ontology of epistemology. What is it
possible to observe? How does the result of observation depend on
that which is being observed? How does observing something change it? (03)
There is an enormous amount of relevant theory and methodology
addressing these questions. Builders and users of artifacts labeled
"ontologies" and the systems that depend on them ignore that research
at their peril. (04)
Kathy (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)
|