On Tue, August 16, 2011 12:35, Rich Cooper said:
> Dear John,
>
> Re your ISS slides, ...
> On slide 68, you wrote:
>
>> Query processing: An SQL query or a path-based query is evaluated to
>> truth or falsity in terms of the given DB. (01)
> I would prefer to interpret the query as truth bindings or lack of said
> truth bindings. Falsity cannot be proven by a lack of answers, it can
> only be interpreted as "to the best of my knowledge, no answers are
> available at this time." (02)
However, when a database is closed, there is knowledge unstated in the
database that all information in a given domain is complete. E.g., the
payroll database has records of all employees. If a correctly formatted
query for a person does not match the database, then that person is not
an employee. In such a closed domain, if truth can not be proven, that
in itself is a proof of falsity. (03)
> With RV's concept of incommensurability factored in, it seems that a
> database comprises a list of known entities, relationships and
> attributes, and constraints among them, but the fact that not all
> views are represented in any database should be emphasized. (04)
The context of the database should be made clear. If it is a closed
context, then the falsity of statements can be proven in that context. (05)
> Naive
> operators blame the computer if the answer doesn't suit them, but all
> that can be realistically concluded is that the answer isn't there,
> if it exists at all. (06)
Only if the database is in an open context. (07)
-- doug f (08)
> HTH,
> -Rich
>
> Sincerely,
> Rich Cooper
> EnglishLogicKernel.com
> Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> 9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2011 8:50 AM
> To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Self Interest Ontology
>
> Azamat, Rich, Richard, Ron, and Ali,
>
> There have been many ideas posted to this list over the past few days
> that are worth considering. But I agree with Azamat:
>
> AA
>> The topic indeed needs more focusing and concentration... keeping away
>> from politics, economics, history, and all sorts of the mass media's
>> sensations and anecdotes, however amusing it might be.
>
> I'd like to start with the following quotation from Wikipedia,
> as copied by Rich:
>
>> *Incommensurability* is the idea that it is possible to see the world in
>> multiple ways, and that there is not a fair method to see which way is
>> right. Some people think that it is possible that scientific traditions
>> (called /paradigms/) can be incommensurable: it is not really possible
>> to say which one is right...
>
> That's a problem we face with huge numbers of legacy systems that
> have no explicit theory of ontology. They have implicit ontologies
> embodied in working software. That software is mission-critical for
> the businesses that use it, and it's not going away for a long time.
>
> RV
>> but the realists position and the notion that knowledge is fallible
>> means that we cannot say something is right or true, we can only say
>> that our claims more closely mirror the world than others...
>
> The world is the starting point. That's what people perceive and talk
> about in everyday language. Refined language, logic, and ontological
> theories are important. But the grounds of agreement are in the
> ordinary language that everybody can read, write, and understand.
>
> RV
>> We can only act, and then monitor the impact and then choose to amplify
>> positive (emergent) patterns and constrain those that we do not want.
>> This is where the wisdom of the crowd might have something really
>> interesting to say. But, I think the wisdom of the crowd has to be set
>> within a broad context of decision logics – and this is why I have
>> been
>> interested John’s epistemic cycle etc of abductive, inductive and
>> deductive reasoning.
>
> I agree. But before we propose new methods of reasoning, we need
> to recognize that companies have successfully developed mission-
> critical systems for over half a century.
>
> In fact, we should look at the punched card systems that Hollerith
> and his successors (IBM) developed a century ago. Many of them
> had useful methodologies for "systems and procedures" which people
> quickly transferred to the early computer systems.
>
> Remember that 'Univac' was synonymous with 'computer' in the public
> mind during the 1950s. But IBM overtook and passed all the competition
> for one simple reason: they had a smooth *migration path* from punched
> card systems to computers.
>
> RW
>> Can you tell me how many years do you think that the litigation about
>> compensation for a garbage dump or electrical generating plant (Nuclear
>> or coal or hydro-electric) would take. Who gets compensated - those
>> downwind, those who lose a fishing spot or beautiful vista, everyone
>> within 20 miles of a nuclear plant?
>
> I agree. Litigation is an extremely slow process that can take years
> to complete. It's a clunky system that tends to reward the wealthy,
> independent of their guilt or innocence.
>
> For people who are most likely to cause harm (rich or poor), clear
> and simple rules are a cheaper and more effective guide to behavior
> than a threat of a long delayed punishment, no matter how harsh.
> But I certainly agree that we need to simplify and clarify the rules.
>
> AH
>> in his "Moral Foundation Theory", [Haidt] identifies the following
>> 5 fundamental categories which arise to various shades of morality:
>>
>> * Care for others, protecting them from harm. (He also referred to this
>> dimension as Harm)
>>
>> * Fairness, Justice, treating others equally.
>>
>> * Loyalty to your group, family, nation. (He also referred to this
>> dimension as In-group)
>>
>> * Respect for tradition and legitimate authority. (He also referred to
>> this dimension as Authority)
>>
>> * Purity, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions.
>
> That's a good summary of the issues, and I would add self-interest to
> the list. People who act ethically also need to survive. I suggest
> the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
>
> I would also replace the word 'purity' with the more general word
> 'aesthetics'. The phrase 'avoid disgusting things' is negative,
> and it's better to have a positive goal for guidance. As a short
> summary, I suggest the slogan "Truth, beauty, and justice."
>
> Peirce, by the way, chose *aesthetics* as the fundamental basis for
> all value judgments. Truth and justice are valued because they are
> more harmonious and satisfying than lying and injustice.
>
> But to bring this thread back to practicality, we need to integrate
> all these issues with a "smooth migration path" that supports a
> methodology that people would actually use. That's the main theme
> of the following slides:
>
> http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/iss.pdf
> Integrating Semantic Systems
>
> That talk contains 100 slides. To get to the point of interoperability
> among systems based on incommensurable theories, I suggest jumping
> directly to slide 62 and read the six slides from 62 to 67.
>
> In the Adobe reader, just type 62 into the window of the slide counter.
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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
> (09)
=============================================================
doug foxvog doug@xxxxxxxxxx http://ProgressiveAustin.org (010)
"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it must be ours."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
============================================================= (011)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (012)
|