John, (01)
It looks you invented a new way of debating: first putting your
misinterpretations or taking as a truth one simpleton's words, and start
contending from these wrong assumptions. (02)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2008 7:30 PM
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Search engine for the ontology (03)
> Mathematics is not an empirical science like the hard sciences of
> physics and chemistry or even the softer sciences like economics
> or psychology. (04)
There did you get this? Who told you this stuff that mathematics is an
empirical science? Everybody in this world knows that the propositions and
axioms of mathematics do not need experimental verification, unlike the
natural sciences. All your further reasoning that it is not an empirical
science might be only interesting for your first year students or housemaid. (05)
> > All great scientific minds followed Euclid' axiomatic approach
> > trying to establish a single foundation in their field of knowledge.
>
> That is absolutely *false*. (06)
Too strong negation. That might be false or might be right. (07)
See Newton's Philosophiae naturalis principia mathematica
See Principia Mathematica
See Hilbert's Foundations of Geometry
See Theoretical Physics of Landay and Lifshitz
See all classical ontological works since Aristotle. (08)
> > Real science, not immature practical quasi-sciences, as politics,
> > economics, jurisprudence, is the sum of universal knowledge organized
> > as the material axiomatic system.
>
> Statements like that justify the review that Wacek found
> (09)
Read more ontological books instead of all these historical fictions. That
the practical sciences are not strictly sciences at all was observed by
Lock. Try to be more ethical in your debate, particularly if you are missing
the point. (010)
> That is exactly how I presented my KR ontology in the book on
> knowledge representation. I explicitly said that the categories
> and axioms were *one* useful classification. And I also believe
> that is the *most* that can be claimed for *every* proposed ontology,
> which includes Cyc, SUMO, Dolce, BFO, yours, and many, many others.
>
> If you are happy to admit that your ontology is one among an infinite
> variety of others that may be useful for various purposes (011)
John, here is hidden your bad methodological mistake. In reality, there can
not be an infinite variety of ontologies. As there is one world, there must
be a single true representation of reality. I don't know who, how, when,
and where will create it. But what I essay is just proposing a VERSION of
universal ontology, which should be verified by knowledge systems. (012)
azamat abdoullaev
> (013)
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (014)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (015)
|