Hi Richard,
Thanks for a fresh view, but I don’t
yet understand (my epistemology is still evolving) how social constructivism
works. It would be very useful to discuss this, and I do think it might
shed some light on subjective knowledge formation. Do you have a tutorial
reference for nonpsychologists that I might be able to review?
I have heard the phrase social
construction used, as I understood it, to refer to the experiences (Kant’s
a priori knowledge?) each of us has as individuals. Clearly we all go
through different experiences, as shown by studies of genetically identical twins
who always turn out to have differences in their development as well as
similarities. Please continue describing this if you are inclined to do
so.
Thanks,
-Rich
Sincerely,
Rich Cooper
EnglishLogicKernel.com
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
From:
ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Richard Vines
Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2011
4:25 PM
To: '[ontolog-forum] '
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum]
intangibles (was RE: Why most classificationsare fuzzy)
Hi
Because I have followed a small number of the threads of this group over a
period and learned a number of things from doing this, I thought I might make a
small contribution back even though I am sure I am way out of my depth
……
RC: …….., I doubt if I can
contribute much more, since I have a very strong conviction that subjective
construction is the missing ingredient in ontology.
JS: There are three important issues that
are worth discussing, but they should be kept distinct when we're trying to
analyze them: (1.) The technical question about how modal logic is
related to possible worlds and/or possible models of the world. (2). The
philosophy of science about the nature of physical laws, and the criteria for
accepting a hypothesis as a law. (3) The psychological and sociological issues
about how scientists and engineers do their work and reach their conclusions.
In this discussion crossing over ontology and epistemic logic (and
modalities), I am not sure why there is no reference to the nature of
“evolutionary possibility”.
For me, there is a need to explicitly take into account a temporal
component to this analysis …. that different types of knowledge emerge
through time.
I have puzzled over these matters for some time and made a first
attempt to link them in section 1.3 of first part of this paper
(the overarching topic being about regulatory systems not epistemology or
ontology). In thinking about this notion of “evolutionary
possibility”, I was interested in exploring whether there might be merit in exploring a
synthesis between Pierce, Popper (and his idea of “evolutionary
epistemology”) Wittgenstein and Peter Munz. Munz was the only student
ever to study under both Popper and Wittgenstein. It is clear from his book
“Beyond Wittgenstein’s Poker”, Munz carried this as an
unresolved burden for a good part of his life and his book has been an attempt
to make sense of this early experience in the 1940’s. I was very
interested in some of his discussion about meaning making within this context.
Subjective construction as “a missing ingredient in
ontology” (in the broad sense of the word ontology) is very much alive
and well in the discourse of knowledge management and to some extent, the KM
world has recently been keen to draw upon Pierce’s notion of abductive
reasoning to support the trend towards the uptake of a theory of social
constructivism. Whilst I am sure this is a good thing, I think there is a long way
to go before prevailing views about KM stabilise – it is still very much
an emergent domain.
To this extent, I have been very much
influenced by John’s advocacy for an “epistemic cycle”. I
think this has a lot to offer for those with interests in KM theory and
practice – and thus I referenced this in the piece referred to above.
This earlier piece on knowledge
support systems in research intensive enterprises also made an attempt to
integrate the impact of hierarchically
complex systems and public knowledge spaces into this mix. These two aspects
have some relevance to this discussion. – particularly, this:
i.e. RC multiple viewers of the same sign, each
seeing it in distinct ways, and reaching distinct conclusions,
Cheers,
Richard