On May 23, 2012, at 3:29 PM, Matthew West wrote: (01)
> 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. (02)
But what then counts as a (single) fact? One way things are (one way a thing
is?) in the world? And if these questions are meaningless, why do we speak of
"facts" in the plural? When Jack Webb said "Just give me the facts, Ma'am.",
what exactly was he asking for? (03)
Pat (04)
> 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.
>
> Chris Menzel
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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 (05)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (06)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (07)
|