Rich, let me try to explain. (01)
You ask, what use is philosophy to practical ontology design? That is a good
question, I agree, and I suspect I agree with you that the answer is something
like, not as much as many people assume it is, or would like it to be. But that
is not the point that has given rise to this particular explosion, or my "poop"
(in your graphic terminology). The point is that *you* are doing the
philosophising, when you write things like the paragraph quoted by William
Frank: (02)
" I can
identify a handful of sand at the beach without assigning an
identity to each grain. All grains look the same to me,
therefore all sand has the same identity, so I treat it as a
unitless object, and the best I can do to subdivide it is to
organize it into specific volumes, weights and prices. " (03)
This *is* philosophy, so one is rather obliged to answer it in a philosophical
mode – part of a debate about Ontology (big O) rather than ontology – but then
one is indeed lost in the muddle that William does a nice job of unpicking. (04)
Indeed, when I read this paragraph I started to write a reply that tried to
unpick all these issues, but I rapidly decided that it was simply not worth
several hours of my time, particularly when all these points have already been
aired many times in this very forum. So I bowed out of the discussion at this
point. (I was delighted to read Matthew's clear and perfectly expressed
response in http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2015-06/msg00067.html,
which exactly expresses my own position on these issues, and further motivated
my deciding to leave the matter alone.) (05)
So to sum up, I guess my response to your question would be: What use is
philosophy? Maybe not much; but then stop trying to do it yourself. Stick to
emails about practical ontology engineering issues. Or, if you insist on airing
philosophical issues and ideas, then get used to having the people with some
philosophical training jumping on you when you seem to be muddled or unclear. (06)
What philosophy does is not so much create truth, as refine and sharpen
arguments, the meanings of words, and chains of reasoning. If I can use a
metaphor, it is like a whetstone for a carpenter. It doesn't cut wood, but it
makes all your chisels sharper. (07)
Best wishes (08)
Pat (09)
On Jun 20, 2015, at 4:57 PM, Rich Cooper <metasemantics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote: (010)
> William,
>
> The thing is, you still haven't come up with a single answer. If you can't
>explain it then you don't know it either. You've just memorized it.
>
> Sincerely,
> Rich Cooper,
> Rich Cooper,
>
> Chief Technology Officer,
> MetaSemantics Corporation
> MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> ( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
> http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com
>
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of William Frank
> Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 4:41 PM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies and languages
>
> Rich
>
> Here is the thing.
>
> What you are doing very often in this forum is expressing your own,
>egregiously messy philosophical opinions, and then decry the waste of time
>that the 'philosophers' on the forum take arguing. In fact, they are usually
>kindly taking their time to attempt to explain some basic tautologies, to
>someone who thinks that their own untutored opinions ought to be defended.
>
> As Thomas Johnston said, philosophy is front and center in understanding
>ontology. Did you look up 'categories' in the stanford enclopedia, as he
>suggested?
>
> Philosophy and logic teach us to think ***clearly and precisely**, to make
>dinstinctions that make a real difference when we try to organize knowledge.
>Almost everything on which you opine in this forum is a philosphical opinion,
>but too slap dash to even warrant the term 'sophmoric."
>
> People who have been taught, at great personal effort, to think and speak
>clearly simply go orbital when they read something in as deeply confused and
>confusing as
> Are you saying that identity must *always* be *unique*? I can
> identify a handful of sand at the beach without assigning an
> identity to each grain. All grains look the same to me,
> therefore all sand has the same identity, so I treat it as a
> unitless object, and the best I can do to subdivide it is to
> organize it into specific volumes, weights and prices.
> They don't even know where to start. Mathew West tried first to respond to
>this. I did not because I know better what happens.
>
> We learn how to carefully parse each sentence for what it could possible mean.
>
> It would take a person willing to learn really new ways of thinking, not
>jumping from one thought to the next, because of some similarity of words, to
>understand how appalling the question
> Are you saying that identity must *always* be *unique*?
> really is.
>
> You are using a reification of a relation (identity) and treating it as if it
>were the name of a thing or type of thing.
>
> Then,
> All grains look the same to me,
> therefore all sand has the same identity,
> In most poorly thought out arguments, like this one, the major premise is
>missing, there is only a minor premise and a conclusion. This means that the
>major premise is not clearly present in the mind of the arguer, as here.
>
> Then,
> all sand has the same identity, so I treat it as a
> unitless object,
> Did you not just identify sand as something that comes in units called
>grains? Sand as a substance is one thing --- it is easy to carefully think of
>how we use the word 'sand' as a mass noun or name of a substance, and
>differentiate this from the many objects that can be composed of the
>substance, such as grains, bags, truckloads.
>
> There is a long, millenia long conversation, among brilliant, careful people,
>about identity, advancing our knowledge, and have enabled us to do meta
>mathematics and computational science more effectively. Many of the people
>on this forum are aware of this. They are referring to that knowledge when
>they try to explain to you the outrageousness of some of your statements.
>
> You think that you can opine about the matter with not only no education on
>that particular matter, but more importantly, with seemingly **not the least
>interest* in actually learning how to think logically. For example, you
>claim that because people have different opinions, that anyone anyone says are
>'just' opinions. I tend to think that while Donald Trump and Alan Blinder
>have different opinions about the role of tariffs (which the Donald calls
>'taxes'), they are not 'just two different opinions.' There is even more
>different between your opining on identity and Frege's "Sense and Reference"
>that that.
>
> What is the difference between the way in which we decide (the identity
>criteria we use) whether this is the same lock of hair (a thing) and whether
>this is a sample of human hair (a substance). Philosophy has taught us to
>understand what a speech act is, also well applied in computational science.
>
> And me, personally, knowing that I had nothing to contribute to that
>millenial long conversation, decided to apply what I learned to engineering.
>Which is what I do. I find that what I struggled to learn results in better,
>more extensible systems. And it helps cyber security systems not make
>mistakes about the identification of the things they need to identify.
>
> I come across very few people indeed who are so sure as you that whatever
>pops into their head should be defended, instead of questioned. If philosophy
>teaches us anything, it teaches us that.
>
> So, I applaud Leo Obrst, when he says
>
> Philosophy cannot provide you anything, so don’t worry about it.
>
> Wm
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Rich Cooper
><metasemantics@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> And how, exactly, does philosophy provide understanding? So far in this
>thread, it hasn't provided a single concrete example.
>
> Since Pat popped off with another stink bomb, I have yet to hear one single
>reason, one clear explanation of worth, as to why and how, specifically, can
>philosophy contribute one simple clear thing to the endeavor of software
>engineering? Just a lot of one-offs.
>
> Pat poops again, and returns to sleep without explaining. You respond below,
>again without explaining why philosophy, of all things, has anything
>whatsoever to contribute to the endeavor of software engineering. There are
>already ontologies in each and every software system written today. Software
>engineering does require ontologies, but does not require philosophy. And, it
>seems, philosophers on this list have not yet offered a single reason to the
>contrary.
>
> Sincerely,
> Rich Cooper,
> Rich Cooper,
>
> Chief Technology Officer,
> MetaSemantics Corporation
> MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> ( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
> http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com
>
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Obrst, Leo J.
> Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 2:14 PM
>
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies and languages
>
> Yes, but the main result is that no one looks at the other side, and everyone
>expects the other side to provide them neat answers when needed. And then
>neither side understands those neat answers, and so quibble, quibble forever.
>Understanding involves learning about both sides. This is not rocket science.
>We experience it every day when we map your database/ontology into mine, and
>vice versa. Interoperability requires understanding. If neither party wants to
>understand the other side, then you do this seemingly infinite dance, which
>takes a LONG time.
>
> If you think understanding something extraneous to your current situation and
>state of knowledge is important, you need to take the time to learn about it.
>There are no miracles, no divine statements about why you should. Otherwise,
>you are a dilletante. Most of us are dilletantes in the areas we don’t think
>are imporant to us, or crucial for our real understanding.
>
> Thanks,
> Leo
>
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf OfRich Cooper
> Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 1:34 PM
> To: '[ontolog-forum] '
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies and languages
>
> Dear Leo,
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
> Rich Cooper,
> Rich Cooper,
>
> Chief Technology Officer,
> MetaSemantics Corporation
> MetaSemantics AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
> ( 9 4 9 ) 5 2 5-5 7 1 2
> http://www.EnglishLogicKernel.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Obrst, Leo J.
> Sent: Saturday, June 20, 2015 10:17 AM
> To: [ontolog-forum]
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies and languages
>
>
>
> John,
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Leo
>
>
>
> >-----Original Message-----
>
> >From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontolog-forum-
>
> >bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
>
> >Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 1:31 PM
>
> >To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> >Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Ontologies and languages
>
> >
>
> >Tom,
>
> >
>
> >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.
>
> >
>
> >John
>
> >______________________________________________________________
>
> >
>
> >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).
>
> >
>
> >_________________________________________________________________
>
> >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
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> 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 (011)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile (preferred)
phayes@xxxxxxx http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (012)
_________________________________________________________________
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 (013)
|