ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology

 To: "[ontolog-forum]" "John F. Sowa" Thu, 11 Sep 2008 02:20:50 -0400 <48C8B8C2.3070702@xxxxxxxxxxx>
 ```Rob and Rick,    (01) There's nothing new in that article:    (02) http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/16-07/pb_theory The End of Theory: The Data Deluge Makes the Scientific Method Obsolete    (03) Ibn Taymiyya said it earlier and better. And he said it in the 14th century AD without any help from Google. See Section 2 of the following article:    (04) http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/analog.htm Analogical Reasoning    (05) It all depends on how general your generalizations are, and how many exceptions there are. If the exceptions outnumber the generalizations, it's far better to go back to raw data and use analogical reasoning. Taymiyya said that, and he was right. But both Ibn Taymiyya and Chris Anderson overlooked the importance of theory when the generalizations are truly general.    (06) Taymiyya admitted that logical deduction from theories is important in mathematics. But in those days, the only empirical subject in which deduction was reliable was astronomy. The Ptolemaic theory put the earth at the center, but the calculations were precise. (By putting the sun at the center, Copernicus simplified the calculations, but he didn't improve the accuracy.)    (07) Today, modern science and engineering would be impossible without a very large number of very well tested theories. The simple equation F=ma, for example, covers an enormous range of phenomena without exceptions. It would be impossible to design a car, a train, or an airplane without using such generalizations.    (08) But Taymiyya was correct for his specialty, which was legal reasoning. The number of exceptions is so great that chains of purely deductive inference are very short. Analogical reasoning from the data (called 'precedents') is essential, and legal scholars have kept and used well indexed volumes of legal cases that cover many centuries of legal precedents.    (09) Since Taymiyya made his observations before the development of modern science, his oversights are excusable. But Chris A. should have known better.    (010) John    (011) _________________________________________________________________ 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    (012) ```
 Current Thread Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, (continued) Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Rick Murphy Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Rob Freeman Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Rob Freeman Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Antoinette Arsic Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Rob Freeman Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Pat Hayes Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Randall R Schulz Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, John F. Sowa <= Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Rob Freeman Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Rob Freeman Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Patrick Cassidy Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Rob Freeman Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Azamat Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Ed Barkmeyer Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology, Azamat