i am most grateful for your answers, simple and honest. But You might be
surprised that the things might be quite different to your expectations;
1. there is one methodology applicable to all fields of knowledge;
2. there is one logic common to all the sciences, theoretical, empirical,
practical, and engineering;
3. there is one unified framework ontology common to all domains of
inquiry, acting as a standard scheme for numerous domain ontologies and
concept schemes, vocabularies, thesauri, classification schemes, subject
heading systems, taxonomies, glossaries, etc. (03)
I feel that it is the devil work to change your mind. But, I believe, that
the truth gotten by sacrificing numerous human lives might have some value
for you: (04)
''There is one universe made up of all things and one God who pervades all
things and one substance, and one law, one common reason in all intelligent
animals and one truth''.
Marcus Aurelius, ''Meditations''
Philosopher and Emperor (05)
Azamat Abdoullaev (06)
---- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology (07)
> Physics is the best developed, the most mathematical, and the
> "hardest" of all the "hard" sciences. But there is no such
> thing as a single methodology even for physics. Therefore,
> I'll start with examples from physics.
> > whether you believe in one methodology applicable to all fields of
> > knowledge or in many different methods for different disciplines;
> At a gross level, you could say that all branches of physics use
> mathematics. But the kinds of math, the methods of gathering data,
> the methods used to solve problems, and the levels of approximation
> differ widely from one kind of application to another.
> For example, classical thermodynamics, which uses observable data
> such as pressure, volume, and temperature is very different in
> methodology than statistical thermodynamics. I have the highest
> regard for Ludwig Boltzmann, who developed the statistical methods
> that could show how one was related to another.
> Ernst Mach was another highly regarded physicist, whose expertise
> was primarily in experimental methods (and he has been honored
> by the name of Mach numbers for supersonic fluid flow). Yet Mach
> fought a decades-long battle against Boltzmann's method because
> Boltzmann dared to make assumptions about unobservable entities
> such as atoms.
> In fact, Boltzmann committed suicide in 1905, after a vacation
> in Italy, rather than return to Vienna, where he would have to
> face Mach's partisans. Of course, Boltzmann had suffered from
> depression for a long time, but the struggles against Mach were
> enough to push him over the edge.
> Even when you don't have personality clashes, you still get
> very different phenomena that require extremely different
> methodologies. The methods used to study the weather are
> totally different from the methods for superconductivity at
> very low temperatures and those are totally different from
> the methods for studying gamma rays from extragalactic sources
> and totally different from studying the byproducts of high-
> energy collisions of subatomic particles.
> Those are examples in physics, but the complications become
> even more diverse when you look at engineering applications
> of physics to different kinds of problems. And when you
> look at sciences just a few steps removed from physics, the
> multiple methodologies escalate without bounds.
> Just imagine a biologist who studies beaver dams, a biologist
> who studies DNA, and a biologist who is looking for life on Mars.
> That is all called biology, but you wouldn't find much similarity
> in what they do.
> > whether you believe in one logic common to all the sciences or
> > in many different logics, one for maths, one for physics, one
> > for politics, one for ethics, etc.
> I would say that first-order logic is common to all of those
> fields. And the use of various subsets below FOL or supersets
> above FOL depend more on the kind of problem than on the subject
> > whether you advance one ontology common to all domains of
> > inquiry or many different ontologies, an ontology for maths,
> > another for physics, another for social sciences, etc.
> Again, the issues are problem dependent. Exactly the same
> object, say a diamond, studied in exactly the same subject,
> say physics, would be studied in different ways for the
> purpose of studying its structure at the atomic level,
> the way it refracts light at the visible level, etc.
> In short, there is no one-size-fits-all methodology for
> physics, and when you get to fields farther removed, such
> as chemistry, biology, psychology, sociology, etc., the
> amount of difference between different applications becomes
> extremely wide.
> I think it would be nice if we could have a single solution
> for all possible problems. But that is not going to happen.
> 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
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (09)