[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Relevance of Aristotelian Logic

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 00:56:30 -0600
Message-id: <5CC23921-00E6-4E01-8EEB-4E9AEF05DA63@xxxxxxx>

On Feb 12, 2009, at 1:46 PM, John F. Sowa wrote:
>    (01)

> PH> And aren't we, in this forum, talking about logics (in a
>> broad sense, ie formalisms for description) and KR, rather
>> than statistics or metaphysics?
> The study of ontology is usually considered a subset of and
> sometimes nearly identical to metaphysics    (02)

I actually strongly disagree with this (and think that this error is  
the cause of a great deal of wasted effort and time in this very  
forum), but let us argue about that topic on another thread.    (03)

> , and logic is quite
> capable of representing any kind of mathematical statement,
> including statistical statements.    (04)

Of course. But my remark was in the context of a disagreement about  
the received meaning of "Extensional", and referred to which  
disciplinary tradition was the one most appropriate for discourse in  
this forum.    (05)

Pat    (06)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: 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 join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (07)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>