To elaborate a little on the issue of reliability of Web data: (01)
[Rob Freeman] >
> Ed Barkmeyer: If I understand you correctly the point you raise is
> about the reliability of data. The issues Anderson's is talking about,
> even more so those of Chaitin, Laughlin, Pines, have nothing to do
> with reliability, not in the simple sense of "error" anyway. They are
> also not issues which can be resolved by "proving" or "disproving" a
> hypothesis.
>
In scientific investigations it is not sufficient to generate a hypothesis
from some collection of observations (e.g. web information). One needs to
**test** the hypothesis by controlled experiment to determine which if any
hypotheses corresponds to reality. The testing phase requires that one
generate **highly reliable data collected under carefully controlled
conditions**, to eliminate all incompatible hypothesis but one. (02)
So statistical analyses of Web data may be useful for generating hypotheses
by correlation, and in some cases (e.g. generating sales prospects) such
correlations may be useful. But they do not in any way substitute for
controlled experiment, unless one's interests are exclusively in topics for
which high error rates are acceptable. Such correlations will not get a
man to the moon or keep a nuclear reactor safe. (03)
Pat (04)
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA, Inc.
908-561-3416
cell: 908-565-4053
cassidy@xxxxxxxxx (05)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
> bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Rob Freeman
> Sent: Friday, September 12, 2008 8:56 AM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Axiomatic ontology
>
> John,
>
> I don't know how much time I want to spend on this. In particular with
> you John, I've been talking about it for years. Typically you fight
> like the devil, but agree in the end (without seemingly changing the
> way you deal with categories in practice: no googling for you.)
>
> I don't have the time to continually repeat old arguments.
>
> But you may genuinely think nothing new can be said because words are
> old, so I'll just quickly mention, in a very practical way directly
> relevant to language, why using old words need not limit you to old
> generalizations.
>
> On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 9:54 PM, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > The words of language are labels attached to those generalizations
> > that people consider important. Some of them, like 'cat' and 'tree'
> > refer to frequently observed patterns, and others like 'zodiac'
> > refer to theory-laden generalizations of generalizations.
> >
> > So when you compress data on the WWW by statistics or search it
> > without compression, you are always using the labels that were
> > derived by millennia of human beings from generalizations that
> > were important to their lives. Even if you store all the raw
> > data on the WWW and go back to it for every use, you will never
> > avoid generalizations. The so called "raw" data cannot be
> > purged of the generalizations by which they were derived.
>
> Simply put, you can escape the old generalizations implicit in words,
> by using new combinations of words.
>
> This is true of syntax in language. It is also true of combinations of
> search keys in indexed search.
>
> Of course as you and I both know, Wittgenstein, for one, has written
> lovely stuff about indeterminacy of word meaning (e.g. "natural
> families": http://www.chaoticlanguage.com/node/7.) So by modern
> philosophical dogma the meaning of even isolated words should be seen
> as indeterminate, even if it is not new. Age does not lend
> definiteness. But that's indeterminacy, not novelty. So just to point
> out that novelty is possible too (by new combinations.)
>
> Ed Barkmeyer: If I understand you correctly the point you raise is
> about the reliability of data. The issues Anderson's is talking about,
> even more so those of Chaitin, Laughlin, Pines, have nothing to do
> with reliability, not in the simple sense of "error" anyway. They are
> also not issues which can be resolved by "proving" or "disproving" a
> hypothesis.
>
> If I'm slow replying forgive me. It is difficult for me to get on-line
> reliably where I am.
>
> -Rob
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|