Ravi, (01)
You wrote: (02)
RS> "Hence while we wait for the ultimate unified theory (which we
hope will not render this life without quest!), we have to do with
approximate enough understanding for the purpose for which we intend to
use the theory or ontology." (03)
I have a different take on John's illustrations and references.
I don't think anyone seriously involved in application of ontology is waiting
for the "ultimate unified theory". The need for unification is not driven by
desire to have an "ultimate theory". That possibility is simply an assumption
behind any attempt for unification, the same way it is in modern physics where
there are now not one but many candidates for "unified theory". If they are
waiting for anything, then it is to find out which one is true. But that does
not stop anyone from building machines and instruments based on existing
theories. (04)
Ironically there are even more candidates for unified theory of ontology, but
dues to lack of any evidence nobody takes any one of those seriously enough to
use as a foundation for any unified paradigm. It is a lack of instruments and
rigorous discipline required to collect the evidence that really is a problem.
Another problem is prevailing in such vaccume doctrine of "common sense" as
only available approach while waiting for perfect theory, which leads to
pseudo-engineering fields like "knowledge engineering" without any theory at
all - just evidence and plenty of encouragement coming from medieval cathedrals
and other things built without theory. (05)
The "use" of what we have (with the ultimate purpose in mind) is not a solution
or even a method. We must settle on a particular framework and build an
engineering discipline, even if that framework itself is questionable at this
time, for the lack of better one. But that is not the same as running in all
directions using what you have. If the "use" seems to be the most important
thing for you, then perhaps Wittgenstein's theory of "knowledge as use" should
be accepted and used to unify the field.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ludwig_Wittgenstein (06)
I believe John is trying for a very long time and with some notable success to
use Pierce's theory as such unifying framework. I support him on this 100%. (07)
--Len (08)
Len Yabloko, Owner/CEO
Next Generation Software
www.ontospace.net (09)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (010)
|