Re: [ontolog-forum] Copyright in Taxonomies: Leading case in US law (ADA

[Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>]

In Scientific world, there is discovery and then there is invention.

Classification is grouping based on  the discovery of patterns and similarity  of the  things - In natural things, it occurs by itself.  In man made things, it is made by man.

Language itself is man made.   Languages are used to document such classification.  However pattern of similarity in natural things are not man made, they are just documented using man made languages..

A taxon (plural: taxa) is a group of (one or more) organisms,

Taxonomy is the practice and science of classification. The word finds its roots in the Greek τάξις, taxis (meaning 'order' or 'arrangement') and νόμος, nomos (meaning 'law' or 'science'). Taxonomy uses taxonomic units, known as taxa (singular taxon)

 

Originally taxonomy referred only to the classifying of organisms (now sometimes known as alpha taxonomy) or a particular classification of organisms. However, it has become fashionable in certain circles to apply the term in a wider, more general sense, where it may refer to a classification of things or concepts, as well as to the principles underlying such a classification.

 

Biological classification (sometimes known as "Linnaean taxonomy") is still generally the best known form of taxonomy. It differs from the above in that it is an empirical science, with classifying only the final step of a process, and a classification only the means to communicate the end results. It also includes the prediction, discovery, description and (re)defining of taxa. It uses taxonomic ranks, including, among others, (in order) Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species (various mnemonic devices have been used to help people remember the list of "Linnaean" taxonomic ranks. See Zoology mnemonic)

 

Nomenclature codes or codes of nomenclature are the various rulebooks that govern biological taxonomic nomenclature, each in their own broad field of organisms

 

Some have argued that the adult human mind naturally organizes its knowledge of the world into such systems.  So our ancestors started documenting the same using a particular language and notations.

The concept " realism" should apply to things and their classification.   Unless one uses hypothetical theories to prove the patterns rather than scientific facts.  

--- On Fri, 10/29/10, John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

From: John F. Sowa <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Copyright in Taxonomies: Leading case in US law (ADA v. Delta Dental)
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Friday, October 29, 2010, 10:50 PM

On 10/29/2010 12:39 PM, Christopher Menzel wrote:
>> PFB:
>>>> >>>  Can you point me to a “classification*system*” that is not
>>>> >>>  human-created?
>> >
>> >  CM:
>>> >>  Of course not.  No one is disputing that.  The disputed claim is that
>>> >>  no such systems "reflect any 'natural' objective truth or set of
>>> >>  'facts'". That is an utter non sequitur.
>> >
>> >  That depends on whether the judge is a nominalist or a realist.

CM:
> I have to disagree, John.  From the fact that classification systems
> are human-created *alone* neither realism nor anti-realism follows.

I agree with that point.

CM:
> The realism I was referring to is the doctrine that there is an objective,
> external world in virtue of which our scientific theories are true or false.
> Traditional nominalism is entirely compatible with realism in this sense.

I also agree with that point.

However, a nominalist cannot distinguish Bode's so-called law, which
is an empirical coincidence about the orbits of the planets, from
the law of gravitation, which is truly fundamental.

I would venture to say that most physicists believe that the laws
of physics are really "real" in the Aristotelian-Scholastic sense.
The laws are not just true, but true because there is something
(call it "nature" or "reality" or "God") that makes them true.

Physicists do, of course, admit that any given formulation of the
laws may be fallible because they haven't been tested under all
conceivable conditions.  Einstein's version of the laws of gravity
are more widely applicable than Newton's, but both versions
captured something "real".  Einstein just had a more general
formulating of the laws, and some future physicist will probably
find an even more general version.

John


_________________________________________________________________
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

_________________________________________________________________
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    (01)