Rob (01)
In my professional thinking, science - commonly defined as search for
truth - is only local as we learn and discover that reality is ever
changing, both as phenomena and also as metaphysics and on top of that
also due to new math, stat and other advances that help you refine
observations. (02)
On top of that what we think two scientists have "Agreed-On" are only
"partially intersecting spheres" as the understanding of phenomena or
objects in their respective perceived worlds are not necessarily totally
congruent? (03)
Please also refer to my earlier observations on PICTURE THEORY OF THEORY
MEANING and Late Prof. Norwood Hanson of Yale.
Thanks. (04)
Ravi (05)
(Dr. Ravi Sharma) Senior Enterprise Architect (06)
Vangent, Inc. Technology Excellence Center (TEC) (07)
8618 Westwood Center Drive, Suite 310, Vienna VA 22182
(o) 703-827-0638, (c) 313-204-1740 www.vangent.com (08)
-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rob Freeman
Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 11:05 PM
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] What words mean (09)
On Feb 13, 2008 12:59 PM, Randall R Schulz <rschulz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Humpty Dumpty has no place in science, math and technology! (010)
In the absence of a theory of meaning, what argument is left in this
thread seems to be mostly focused on the nature and process of
science. (011)
For anyone who is really looking for new ideas in this thread, I want
to recommend Thomas Kuhn's ideas on the subject of science. He not
only has a refreshingly new perspective on what constitutes a science
(a consensus), he also has a very explanatory theory of meaning to
back up his conclusions (paradigm, in itself a reinterpretation of the
old Greek word for "example"?) (012)
This passage might summarize some of his views on the process of
science: (013)
Kuhn, Structure of Scientific Revolutions p.g. 103: (014)
"...the reception of a new paradigm often necessitates a redefinition
of the corresponding science. Some old problems may be relegated to
another science or declared entirely "unscientific." Others that were
previously non-existent or trivial may, with a new paradigm, become
the very archetypes of significant scientific achievement. And as the
problems change, so, often, does the standard that distinguishes a
real scientific solution from a mere metaphysical speculation,
wordgame, or mathematical play. The normal-scientific tradition that
emerges from a scientific revolution is not only incompatible but
often actually incommensurable with that which has gone before." (015)
This might be a good summary of his theory of meaning: (016)
p.g. 192 (Postscript)
"When I speak of knowledge embedded in shared exemplars, I am not
referring to a mode of knowing that is less systematic or less
analyzable than knowledge embedded in rules, laws, or criteria of
identification. Instead I have in mind a manner of knowing which is
misconstrued if reconstructed in terms of rules that are first
abstracted from exemplars and thereafter function in their stead." (017)
-Rob (018)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (019)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (020)
|