I agree; it makes no sense to say that all
viewpoints are equally objective.
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Frank
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Constructs, primitives, terms
On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Hans Polzer <hpolzer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I suspect you would like to see some responses from
other than those engaged in this recent flurry of emails, but I’ll offer my own
thoughts on your question. Some of the points or interpretations/speculations
raised in this email forum might be viewed as being at the margin of the forum
domain by some, but ontology is about the meaning of or existence of entities
and concepts, and representing those in abstract constructs/symbols.
Rich’s points seem to me to be relevant to the ontology
My objection is simply the inference that because ALL beliefs are
**influenced** by personal experience and lenses, that they are ALL EQUALLY
objective or non-objective, that the very concept of objectivity is out the
window, is my only issue. It makes debate pointless. Aids is an American plot
and not sexually transmitted is just as true as that it is sexually
transmitted. Makes no difference which you believe.
but others might disagree, such as yourself. I had
pointed out in an earlier email that domain boundaries are inherently fuzzy and
ultimately a social construct.
I agree with this. Don't see how it could be otherwise. Fuzzy does not mean
non-existent. It is the view that objectivity has to be total, or there is no
judging it, that is anti-scientific.
Domain boundaries are vaugue, that does not mean that if I say organic
chemistry include astrology, that is just as good an opionion as any other.
That nobody knowns anything better than anyone else. Domain bondaries, being
about language, are ultimately a solcial construct, because language is
ultimately a social construct. I say this in the firm belief that it is
true, and that there is alot of evidence for it, not just becuase it happens to
be my own personal opinion. And, as laguage is fuzzy, so are most of the
things about it. Fuzzy, though, does not mean "sharp" in
English. If this were only my own private opinion, and you had YOUR own,
how could we disagree?
I take your email as one element of the process that
creates and maintains that social construct.
I am all for talking about domain boundaries, and what causes them.
Only if we say we each of us know as much as anyone else about everything, from
which it follows noone knowns about anything.
On Behalf Of William Frank
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2012
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Constructs, primitives, terms
I have one big
question about this, for the group as a whole, I wonder how widely held is the
"reasoning" and opinions expressed by Rich below in this group. I am
surprised to see views on these matters aired on what I thought was a
scientific forum, views very far off what I thought was the subject. I am sorry
for using your time further on such a matter, but it ***really** confuses me so
to find this stuff here; I would like to understand better what s going on.
On Sat, Mar 10,
2012 at 2:19 PM, Rich Cooper <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks for your reply. Please see my responses embedded into your
EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5
7 1 2
I think it would be better not to use terms like
“semantic baggage”, which suggest some lack of objectivity on the part of
whoever defined C.
I can’t take credit for
that term; David was the first to use it, but I heartily agree with the term
because I firmly believe that the originator(s) of any ontology necessarily
exercised their subjective cache of beliefs to create the ontology. That is
really my point in this discussion.
Many perhaps most reflectively people would agree that it is impossible to
completely eliminate subjectivity, just as it is impossible to be completely
sure what is true, or what is right. But from this, none of the rest of what
you say follows.
People are always
subjective, even when pretending toward the objective view.
If this is true, then is not your stating this view above entirely a matter of
your ***own*** subjective view, and is therefore something noone else should
care about, since they either have their own subjective views, equally as good
as yours, or are perhaps to be persuaded that uttering the same statements as
you will maybe be in their personal interest, as the group that shares your
views might be able to exert power of them, if they disagree?
Doesn't the word "pretending" means that you know what you are doing
is not real, and you are making no attempt to conform to what is real. Is
everyone who tries to get closer to the truth just 'pretending' they are?
Does it follow that when people try to get closer to objectivity, they are only
"pretending", rather than honestly trying to be *more* objective, be
*closer* to the truth? does it follow when people try to find the truth, they
are doing no more than saying whatever will most benefit them? Does this mean
that a newspaper might as well make up whatever it wants, that Pravda was
*just* as objective as the Times, because both were influence by the glasses
they wore? Don't the matters of degree make any difference? (Of course, there
are no degrees, if we accepted your view. Every view is as correct as any
other) Does this mean that scientists are wrongly chastised for making up thier
data? If so, why should we bother to converse? Or maybe if it meets their ends,
they are right to make up data? Is it even possible for their to be a
difference between made up data and other data, if it is all just pretending at
We see our world through
the glasses of a subjective experience from birth to now. Objectivity is what
we call it when people don’t disagree much on a concept.
So, the only judge is what others say. So, when they believed that the world
was flat, because others agreed, that was objective truth? When the Concil of
Constance said it was right to burn Huss as a heretic without listening to what
he had to say, because who should listen to a heretic, that was reason, because
it was accepted by the group? Then, the only reason others might disagree with
this is because the belong to some group that does so? If so, why bother?
Because you are pursuing your own interests? If so, does this mean you can
murder whomever you like, as long as your group, however you define it, agrees.
Can there be groups of one?
That is why people can
agree on very simple ontologies such as Dublin Core, but not on more complex
Well, what happens if I disagree with the Dublin Core? I am simply
excommunicated from the group? Does this mean the core cannot change? Unless
somebody with more power comes along to make it change, or unless the majority
happens to changes its view like lemmings running over a cliff? If the majority
is always right, which majority? Or is every majority right? From your account
of why to say things, I can only think that I should agree with the dublin core
because it wil help me get a job, or stay in this august group, etc, becuase
that is the only kind of being right there is.
It follows to me from what you say above, that the Dublin core must be only a sociological
metric, that records whatever its current members happen to say. But, if when I
read what the core says, if I find it to be a disertation on the quality of
Bulgarian poliphonic music, I have made no possible mistake.
On the contrary, have found that people instead are able to understand that they
way they use words is part of a viewpoint, that not all others might not share,
but that some must, and when they are asked to consider these other viewpoints,
are able to see value in them, and see how their own viewpoint might fit in as
a part of a bigger whole, that such people now know something important to
know, that is *true*, and that science represents advances in truth, (at least
until I started to see things like this). But if is all the same, we are just
pretending when we believe these things, then why are you bothering? In all
sincerity, I ask what your motivations could be.
Me, I would guess you really and truly BELIEVE what you are saying The problem
is, that fact in itself is ***inconsistent** with what you are saying: If what
you are saying is true, there is no truth, so what you say can't be true. And,
since believing something is thinking it to be true, then beliving there is no
truth except what you believe is circular. So whatever you said is as
"true" as anything else you might say. Then, why should you be
passionate, as you seem to be, about a belief grounded in nothing but your own
personal impressions? Whatever you believe is true IS true, so what are you
doing caring whether others believe it too. The only other choice I can imagine
is that all talk is just for personal benefit: talk to keep an easy job, talk
to get the satisfaction of winning in a low-pain sport, talk to keep people's
attention on one, talk to make sure that as many others are in your camp as
possible, to avoid threats.
Or perhaps, you believe also it makes no difference whether what you say is
consistent, because consistency and reasoning is also just
"pretending" to be objective. Then, why do you bother to use a word
like "why", which to most of us, means providing a sound reason. Any
reason or no reason would be is as good as any other. Because you think giving
a reason will persuade all the foolish people who think that good reasons are
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
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
This email is confidential and proprietary, intended for its addressees only.
It may not be distributed to non-addressees, nor its contents divulged,
without the permission of the sender.