(BOn slide slide 67 of this http://www.jfsowa.com/talks/iss.pdf you say:
$B!|(B But all true theories must be consistent with observations.
(BI am not sure if this is a pedantic or a substantial matter I am raising.
(BI would take the view that there are never any "true theories".
(BAll knowledge is fallible - some theories better explain something than
(Bothers because they are consistent with observations (principle of
(Binduction). Observations that are inconsistent with theories act to refute
(Btheories. In many ways this is the basis of evidenced-based practice.
(BObservations are a form of evidence and the evidence can refute a theory. By
(Btaking the best theories into account, based on the evidence, we aim to
(Bimprove the quality of decision making.
(BBut what happens when we cannot compare apples with apples. In fact, I would
(Bargue this is almost always the case in reality. Knowledge is always
(Bcontextual and linguistic expressions always contain aspects of 'linguistic
(BTherefore, from one context to another, we need to have a way of dealing
(Bwith the incommensurability between different linguistic frameworks
(Bassociated with those contexts. This is why I prefer the idea of 'evidence
(Binformed' decision making. It focuses on a perspective that only people
(Bthemselves can resolve semantic ambiguity between different contexts. An
(Bevidence base informs decision making, it is not the basis of decision
(Bmaking. Our ontologies are merged and/ or are expanded (or said another way
(B... they evolve through time) as a result of resolving semantic ambiguity.
(BThinking about this challenge using another example ... the challenges of
(Binteroperability and incommensurability in the translation of XML content
(Bfrom one schema to another I have suggested: ....
(B..... it will not be possible to dispense with human intervention in the
(Btranslation of digital content. A technology that fails to acknowledge this,
(Band to make suitable provision for it, will be dysfunctional in comparison
(Bwith one that does. The reason for this is that digital content is ascribed
(Bmeaning by those people who use it; the categories used to organise content
(Breflect these meanings. Different communities of activity ascribe different
(Bmeanings and thus different categories. Translation of the elements of
(Bcontent from one set of categories to another cannot, we claim, be
(Baccomplished without the application of what we will call $B!F(Bhuman
(BSchemas are theories about the world. Can these schemas be true? I don't
(Bthink so and if this is a serious answer to my question, then the
(Bimplications for thinking about interoperability strategies are very
(BI am raising these matters as rhetorical questions rather than necessarily
(Bstatements of opinion.
(BMessage Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
(BConfig Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
(BShared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
(BCommunity Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
(BTo join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J