[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] Endurantism and Perdurantism - Re: Some Comments on

To: "[ontolog-forum] " <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Obrst, Leo J." <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 21:12:10 +0000
Message-id: <DM2PR09MB04316B8CD41A2EDB800B8BF7DDF10@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
John,    (01)

I think my third point about ontological engineers points to your third point 
(C):    (02)

Mine: "For ontological engineers, of course, it could be moot [interjection: 
i.e., the A and B sides], since we have application fish to fry. But to be 
better ontological engineers, I think it is not moot. Especially if the best 
engineering ontologies approximate (or intend to) the best scientific theories."    (03)

However, I think the real fight is between A and B in your trichotomy. The 
A-direct folks are generally ontologists/metaphysicians/some semanticists, The 
B-direct folks are generally logicians/some semanticists.  B folks 
describe/represent what the A-folks say.     (04)

Without B, A folks wander in an ambiguous morass, talking past each other for 
generations, e.g., as we do here. Without A, B folks generate better ways to 
says things unambiguously and more expressively without (worrying about) 
grounding in reality.     (05)

By the way, this is why I've always objected to the definition of: ontology df= 
a logical theory. Why? Because it takes no consideration of reality (or 
approaches to reality). Anything can be a logical theory.  In a separate 
discussion, this is why I object to particular neo-scholastic Chomskyan 
mainstream linguistic theories, beyond considerations of imprimatur: they are 
not sufficiently grounded. Sorry: my intent is not to open up the ontology 
definition wars once again! I'd like to keep it focused on A and B.     (06)

This is why I don't post here often (beyond vast lack of time): I don't want to 
muddy the already muddy waters, but every step in does that, alas.    (07)

Leo    (08)

>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
>Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 4:24 PM
>To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Endurantism and Perdurantism - Re: Some
>Comments on Descriptive vs. Prescriptive Ontologies
>On 4/3/2015 3:19 PM, Obrst, Leo J. wrote:
>> This is a point of disagreement, I think, between logicians and
>> ontologists (qua metaphysicians). The former think that expressing
>> / representing something is equivalent to it being so, and that
>> the "being so" doesn't matter that much. The latter think not.
>But there are three things to distinguish, not just two.  Following
>is an excerpt from a previous note I wrote on this thread:
>> We have to distinguish
>>    A) The way the world (or universe) actually happens to be
>>       -- about which all of us have some shared opinions and
>>       scientists have more detailed analyses and theories.
>>    B) The way people talk in everyday language or in any
>>       artificial notation, such as formal logic.
>>    C) An ontology about the world that happens to be useful
>>       for some particular task or group of related tasks.
>Category B includes any kind of language or logic.  Category C
>includes any theory about the world by ontologists, by scientists,
>or by engineers who apply ontology or science to a particular task.
>But we have to recognize that the world A is not identical to
>the way B we talk about it or the way C that some scientists,
>engineers, or ontologists characterize it.
>Every mapping to the world A from any language B or any theory C
>is an *approximation* whose usefulness depends on the application.
>When the application changes, we may need to use a different
>approximation -- i.e., different theory of ontology or science.
>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
>    (09)

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    (010)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>