On Aug 15, 2007, at 3:20 AM, Chris Partridge wrote:
>> Exactly so, which is why semantics is entirely distinct from
>> epistemology. Indeed, by my admittedly dim lights, epistemology --
>> the philosophical analysis of knowledge -- is of at best marginal
>> relevance to ontological engineering.
>
> My point is not in response to your comment about the relevance of the
> preceding emails - but about the general statement above.
>
> I have found that when one deals with operational systems,
> epistemic concerns become relevant - if one is prepared to take
> 'epistemic' to include understanding what the system knows. (01)
As I noted in my response to Kathy, I was using "epistemology" in its
purely philosophical sense. Clearly, there are notions that are
broadly epistemological (and deontological) that are critical to
quality ontological engineering. I did not make this sufficiently
clear in my original post. (02)
> Of course, this leave opens whether "philosophical mumbo-jumbo"
> about epistemology or deontology is relevant here. That is a
> different question. Though, it seems to me that awareness of the
> 'mumbo-jumbo' can sometimes be useful. (03)
Awareness of the history and the general lay of the philosophical
land, yes. Lengthy discussion of the landscape (generally featuring
one's own personal "take"), no. (04)
-chris (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)
|