ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] electric sheep

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Azamat" <abdoul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2007 20:50:03 +0200
Message-id: <003201c82238$2cb1ec70$010aa8c0@homepc>
John wrote:
''Ontology is something that one could study in science (discovering what 
exists) or in  philosophy
characterizing what exists) or in both.''    (01)

John,
Ontology is the core of philosophy (Logics, Epistemology, Semantics, etc.) 
and the foundation of all sciences, physical, psychological, social, and 
engineering, thus it sets the most basic assumptions for the world 
knowledge, to be truly represented by the advanced knowledge and semantic 
technology. Other views only depricate its high status of Science of 
sciences.    (02)

Azamat    (03)

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 10:51 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] electric sheep    (04)


> Azamat,
>
> Ingvar and I were talking about the difference between science
> and philosophy.  Ontology is something that one could study
> in science (discovering what exists) or in  philosophy
> characterizing what exists) or in both.
>
> Those more detailed comments you suggested are questionable.
> Trying to assign one or another to one field or the other is
> almost impossible, since people working in many different fields
> have studied, analyzed, or contributed to all of those aspects.
> I think it's a waste of time even to try.
>
> In any case, I do not believe that a sharp distinction between
> science and philosophy is possible or desirable.  My recommendation
> (which many philosophers, such as Peter Hacker, have discussed in
> more detail) is to use the criterion of the proportion of attention
> to conceptual analysis to characterize some efforts as more
> philosophical vs. more scientific.  But there have been philosophers
> who made good contributions to science and scientists who have made
> good contributions to philosophy.
>
> I think it would be pointless and counterproductive to try to
> pigeon-hole the contributions by making too many fine distinctions.
>
> 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
>     (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)

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