LO: Of course it helps if
ontology engineers/implementors acquire a deep understanding of philosophy,
RC: How exactly does "a
deep understanding of philosophy" help engineers? That is certainly
not obvious from the discussions here. Most of the software people have
agreed on objects and events as the basis of systems. The philosophers on
the list keep debating about perdurants and endurants, and endless ways to
split hairs that have nothing to do with the software structures required by
serious applications.
So please, describe why you
think "a deep understanding of philosophy" can help engineers?
LO: and if philosphers
acquire a deep understanding/practice of ontology engineers/implementors.
RC: Unless philosophers can
somehow produce a payoff, a value as seen by the said engineers, what good are
they to the engineers?
Dilletantes on either side
obscure the issues of both, and spend their time on endless argumentation.
So far that seems to have
been the progress of this thread.
Chief Technology Officer,
MetaSemantics Corporation
MetaSemantics AT
EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
Of course it helps if
ontology engineers/implementors acquire a deep understanding of philosophy, and
if philosphers acquire a deep understanding/practice of ontology engineers/implementors.
Dilletantes on either side obscure the issues of both, and spend their time on
endless argumentation.
>-----Original
Message-----
>Sent: Friday, June 19,
2015 1:31 PM
>Subject: Re:
[ontolog-forum] Ontologies and languages
>I completely agree with
you:
>> What the history of
Philosophy, and especially of ontology, shows us
>> is that important
philosophers have not failed at the winnowing task,
>> but simply worked
hard and carefully to -- with apologies for the
>> shift of metaphor --
slice the ontological pie in different ways.
>I would *never* try to
stifle philosophical debate. That is absolutely
>essential for clarifying
the issues and deciding what to represent, how
>to represent it, and what
to do with the results.
>But everything that can
be implemented on a digital computer can be
>expressed in first-order
logic. Some extensions to FOL for supporting
>metalanguage and
quantifying over relations and functions can simplify
>and clarify the mapping.
>What we have today is a
huge amount of words taken out of context from
>the vast literature of
philosophy and used to decorate the formal
>notations. It's OK
to put some of those words (with citations to the
>original context) in the
comments.
>But the meaning of the
formalism is precisely defined by the model
>theory. None of the
philosophical subtleties survive the translation
>from the original context
into the software.
>When you use
philosophical words to decorate the formal language, they
>are *worse* than useless
because they confuse *everybody*:
> 1. The
overwhelming majority of the programmers don't understand
>
the philosophical issues. For them, those mysterious words
>
may have some hidden meaning. So they carefully preserve them.
> 2. If those
mysterious words weren't present, the programmers
>
would examine the software to see exactly what is going on.
>
But they have a vague feeling that those words have some
>
deep power that goes beyond what is in the executable code.
> 3. For the
philosophers who don't understand the software,
>
they may have a comfy feeling that their ideas have somehow
>
filtered down into the implementation. If so, they are
>
even more confused than the programmers.
> 4. The result is a
total breakdown in communication between
>
the philosophers and the people who develop and use the
>
software that is supposed to be based on the philosophy.
>My recommendation (copy
below) is to force both sides to face the fact
>that digital computers
are limited to FOL (or modest variations of
>FOL). Any terms
that don't have a precisely defined mapping to FOL
>can't have any useful
effect on any implementation -- but they can
>create a lot of
confusion.
>Therefore, the
philosophers and the implementers must agree on a simple
>terminology that *both*
sides understand and that has a precisely
>defined mapping to what
the computer does.
>______________________________________________________________
>As a general strategy, I
would recommend:
> 1. A formal logic
with the barest *minimum* amount of terminology.
>
It must at least contain FOL + the option of quantifying over
>
functions and relations + the option of using metalanguage for
>
talking about whatever languages are being defined.
> 2. A huge
*purging* of the immense philosophical terminology
>
to a minimal set that is formally defined in the logic of #1.
> 3. The option of
designing an open-ended family of formal notations,
>
linear and/or graphic, that have a precise mapping to #1 and #2.
> 4. There may be
huge debates about how to map NL terminology
>
(including any and all terms in philosophy, science, business,
>
the arts, etc., to the terms in point #2). But any proposed
>
solution must be defined in the logic and minimal terminology of
>
points #1 and #2 (or #3, which is defined in terms of #1 and #2).
>_________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________