John wrote: "And a warning: Unless you can find an immutable law of nature
that creates a classification, don't expect it to be a solid
foundation for a "standard ontology".
Agree. Here are five methodogical rules from the standard ontology:
1. Class is determined by a single property;
2. Kind is determined by a set of properties;
3. Natural Kind is determined by a set of lawfully related properties
(laws);
4. Natural Genus is the set of things sharing a basic law;
5. Natural Species is the set of things sharing a particular law.
Many classifications are mostly at the level one, like the five
classifications for natural resources, such as land, water, soils, plants,
animals, solar power, etc, divided by a single property: origin;
renewability, availability, development stage or distribution scope. A more
scientific understanding of resources is asking for reaching higher levels. (01)
Azamat Abdoullaev (02)
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 7:45 PM
Subject: [ontolog-forum] Why most classifications are fuzzy (03)
> This forum has been quiet for a while, and I'd like to stir the pot
> with a controversial issue.
>
> Two widely known rigid classifications established a paradigm,
> which some people mistakenly consider the norm: the periodic
> table in chemistry and the Linneaen taxonomy of living things.
> But the rigid boundaries of those categories are the result of
> underlying laws of nature that explain why intermediate cases are
> impossible (periodic table) and rare (taxonomy of species).
>
> For physics and chemistry, quantum mechanics implies discrete steps,
> which create discrete classifications of elementary particles.
> At the next level up, it also implies discrete combinations of
> such particles -- combinations of quarks to form baryons (protons
> and neutrons) and combinations of atoms to form molecules.
>
> For biology, discrete molecular operations support the stable
> molecules needed for life and the mechanisms for replicating the
> huge molecules needed for DNA. But those mechanisms are only
> weakly stable -- that leads to random mutations.
>
> For the next level up, natural selection creates fuzzy boundaries
> among interbreeding populations, but crisp boundaries between
> isolated populations. For example, look at the sharp distinction
> between foxes and wolves, but fuzzy boundaries among dogs. When
> humans allow dogs to "do their own thing", the breeds quickly
> revert to a generic ur-dog -- which is usually healthier and
> more robust than many breeds.
>
> Some biological classifications are not based on DNA. Examples
> are trees and berries. For example, the family Rosaceae includes
> rose bushes, apple trees, and raspberries. Biologically, all
> berries are fruit, but apples are more likely to be grouped with
> oranges as "typical" fruit than with raspberries.
>
> By height and woodiness, an apple tree is more likely to be
> classified with a remotely related spruce tree than with
> a rose bush. And many evergreens become bushes or trees
> at the whim of some human with a pair of shears.
>
> There is even a debate in India whether bamboo should be
> classified as grass or tree: "Recently there was a controversy
> when the union ministry of environment and forests asked states
> across India to recognise bamboo as a minor forest produce."
>
> See http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/life/Bamboo
>
> In general, what makes any classification rigid is some *law*,
> which could be a law of nature or some human rule. Since it's
> a lot easier to change human laws, such classifications are
> likely to change with culture, technology, or fads.
>
> Summary: Fuzzy boundaries are the norm in most classifications.
> Whenever a boundary seems to be sharp, look for some axiom, law,
> principle, or convention that creates the distinction. Those
> laws are more fundamental than any grouping by "similarity".
>
> And a warning: Unless you can find an immutable law of nature
> that creates a classification, don't expect it to be a solid
> foundation for a "standard ontology".
>
> John Sowa
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (04)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (05)
|