Dear John, It seems you have a different idea of what a fact is. I would take the facts as how things are in the world. A report of how things are would be a statement rather than a fact. Regards Matthew West Information Junction Tel: +44 1489 880185 Mobile: +44 750 3385279 Skype: dr.matthew.west matthew.west@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.informationjunction.co.uk/ http://www.matthew-west.org.uk/ This email originates from Information Junction Ltd. Registered in England and Wales No. 6632177. Registered office: 2 Brookside, Meadow Way, Letchworth Garden City, Hertfordshire, SG6 3JE. From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John Bottoms
Sent: 23 May 2012 16:36
To: [ontolog-forum]
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] [ontology-summit] Estimating number of all known facts It seems to me that some questions concerning "facts" are missing.
1. Who (and when) declared some statement as a fact?
2. If someone declared something a fact, can't humans (or actor) make subjective errors?
3. What is the life duration of a specific fact?
4. In what situation was the fact true?
5. What is the audience or community for that fact?
It seems to me that facts should be treated as signals in a communication system first. They must be communicated faithfully and the communication system must be capable of communicating any signal for which the system was designed. The system should only qualify and reject signals (facts) that are beyond its capabilities to communicate. In essence, a fact communicating system contains a classifier.
When a signal is received, the information from the signal can be extracted and processed further. Facts in isolation are meaningless statements. They are intended for use by a community. Even when stored for later use, signals and facts should have information associated with them that grounds them or provides hints on their use.
If we are talking about an individual knowing or retaining facts then there is an issue of garbage collection. For a universal system, such as a knowledge web, the management of a collection of facts should be viewed differently.
-John Bottoms
FirstStar Systems
Concord, MA USA
On 5/23/2012 7:20 AM, Christopher Menzel wrote: On May 23, 2012, at 12:59 AM, William Frank wrote: This is a question that could lead to a lot of different threads, that could be amusing or troublesome, and maybe some thread that might be enlightening.
One, that has been brought up below, is the fact that facts are slippery things: what people believe is true, what they are so sure about, they are willing to call it a fact, does not mean it IS true. Back to the theory of knowlege, which does not seem to fair well in this forum, with the total relativists among us seeming to believe (inconsistently) that a fact itself is "just" what somebody believes,
Then they are, as you suggest, confusing facts with beliefs. But I think there are very few people in this forum who are that confused.
Another is how do you **count** facts? For almost 40 years, in the mid last century, started by Russel and Wittgenstein's idea of an atomic fact, carried forward by Carnap, might have suggested a way. For example, take the fact that I have 10 toes, and i know this is true, at least the last time I looked. Then, there are other facts that I know on reflection, such as that I have at least 3 toes, and that I do not have exactly 7 toes, and that I have fewer that 11 toes. In fact, going forward, we have an **infinite** number of facts: for each n, the fact that I have fewer than n toes, where n is greater than 10. I think the atomic facts in question are 10 in number, that I have toe 1, toe 2, etc. The problem with this is that atomic facts are based, as Mathew Lange says, on relationships between known entities, and how do we count these? The foot, the toes, the 26 bones in the foot, the 356 blood vessels? These are all reasonable questions and observations, but they don't show that there is anything inherently vague or intractable about facts. Compare the situation in set theory. In the early history of set theory there were analogous questions: Can sets contain themselves as members? Are there infinite sets? Is there a set of all sets? A set of all cardinal numbers? Can all sets be well-ordered? Relative to one or another theory of sets, all of these questions have clear answers. Likewise, if you want facts in your ontology, you need a theory of facts that will generate clear answers and serve your purposes.
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 2:28 PM, LaVern Pritchard <lavern@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
The number of known facts is unknowable because a fact is in the eye of the beholder or a label,
Sez you. What's your theory of facts? What's a beholder? What's a label? You can't just pull stuff like this out of thin air and expect it to be meaningful.
_________________________________________________________________ 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 (01)
|