Ed Barkmeyer wrote:
In my limited contact with the medical and life sciences
communities, it
has been my experience that the "plain language" is not
by any means
"plain". The language is created by introducing a
new term for every
combination of properties that is of interest, either by defining a
new
"property", or more commonly by defining a new
"class" that inherits
every property but one from some subsuming class and adds the one
new
property. The result is a language in which most of the
sentences are
fairly simple and structurally easy to understand, but they depend
on a
huge proliferation of terms to accomplish that simplicity.
The concepts
are no less complex, and it requires looking at 5 definitions to
determine what was said.
This approach is the reverse of mathematical notations, which
create a
grammar that allows complex statements to be unambiguously written,
and
in turn allows the theory
to be conveyed with a smaller vocabulary.
My Life Sciences experience is about the same as you
describe (a minor in Medical Engineering way back in grad school), but I concur
with your assessment. The number of terms, and their obscure Latinate
origins, makes the Life Sciences a memory challenge, while the limited
vocabulary of math, along with the dense abstractions intended to divorce math
from reality, work against the life sciences approach. Math is used in
life sciences also, but it tends to be pretty limited compared to the computer
sciences.
Biology is concerned with a huge number of variant
individuals while math is concerned with unrealistic but deep deduction and
symbolic manipulation having to do with very little.
-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 Ed Barkmeyer
Sent: Friday, January 04, 2013 10:42 AM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Intensional
relation
On 1/3/2013 6:43 PM, matthew lange wrote:
> Why does it have to be
> John: "Teaching ontology by burying the
fundamental insights under the
> trivial notation is pedagogical
malpractice."
> or
> Leo: "The point of using mathematical (or
logical) notation is to make
> your statement precise and unambiguous."
>
> Cannot these perspectives be harmonized?:
> Fundamental principles can be explained in plain
language, with
> formalized notation provided for those trained in
higher mathematics.
I am strongly in favor of stating the fundamental
principles in "plain
language" and then following that with
mathematical formulations, and I
think that is the best practice for such papers.
But I must confess
that, a few steps into a theory, the "plain
language" can become
significantly less than "plain" and easily
understood.
> FWIW, I am a life scientist with several years of
data/knowledge
> architecture experience. I cringe at the
formalist notation--able to
> understand it with my old math books next to
me--but view that largely
> as a waste of time if the concept is well
explained. If authors only
> care about talking to other
mathematicians/logicians then this
> notation is good. If they want to reach a larger
audience who can
> leverage their teachings...
>
> ~mc
In my limited contact with the medical and life sciences
communities, it
has been my experience that the "plain
language" is not by any means
"plain". The language is created by
introducing a new term for every
combination of properties that is of interest, either
by defining a new
"property", or more commonly by defining a
new "class" that inherits
every property but one from some subsuming class and
adds the one new
property. The result is a language in which most
of the sentences are
fairly simple and structurally easy to understand, but
they depend on a
huge proliferation of terms to accomplish that
simplicity. The concepts
are no less complex, and it requires looking at 5
definitions to
determine what was said.
This approach is the reverse of mathematical
notations, which create a
grammar that allows complex statements to be
unambiguously written, and
in turn allows the theory to be conveyed with a
smaller vocabulary.
Ultimately, the problem is that we have a world of
knowledge that is
considerably more complex than that of our 19th
century forebears.
Different disciplines have devised different
approaches to conveying
complex theories, but they cannot reduce the intrinsic
complexity. Per
Einstein, "we must strive to make things as simple
as they are, but no
simpler."
-Ed
--
Edward J.
Barkmeyer
Email:edbark@xxxxxxxx
National Institute of Standards & Technology
Systems Integration Division, Engineering Laboratory
100 Bureau Drive,
Stop
8263
Tel: +1 301-975-3528
Gaithersburg,
MD 20899-8263
Cel: +1 240-672-5800
"The opinions expressed above do not reflect
consensus of NIST,
and have not been reviewed by any Government
authority."
_________________________________________________________________
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