Here is a TED talk by Dan Ariely who explains some of the
reasons why we see different worlds:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y0w5EJC9o0
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 John F Sowa
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2015 6:34 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] Is Philosophy Useful in Software Engineering
Ontologies?
On 7/6/2015 7:35 PM, Rich Cooper wrote:
> Of the 11 dimensions, we see only 3.5. The
rest we deduce based on
> complete lack of physical evidence about what is
going on...
Yes. That is the point of Peirce's pragmatism and
fallibilism.
All science is fallible.
> We don't know that the effects are only
submicroscopic...
There are certainly more facts that we don't know than
the ones we do. But scientists know that a huge number of facts about
submicroscopic phenomena have effects that we observe at the macroscopic
level. In fact, *all* chemical reactions are the result of quantum-level
interactions.
The empirical observations made by chemists (and the
earlier
alchemists) were true as far as they went. 19th
century chemists learned a large number of facts about the elements, how they
interacted with each other, the atomic weights of the known elements, and even
the periodic table of the elements.
In that regard, the chemists were *far ahead* of the
physicists, many of whom were skeptical about the existence of atoms. As
late as the early 1900s, Ernst Mach refused to admit that atoms existed.
During the early 20th c, physicists used the facts
discovered by chemists as guidelines for their theories about atoms.
Today, chemists use quantum mechanics to calculate how
various molecules will react even before they synthesize them.
> Any attempt to whitewash that unknown is just
"proof by emphatic
> assertion" that it doesn't matter, not real
proof.
Fundamental principle: Any fact on whose truth you
are willing to bet your life is one for which your belief is very, very strong.
There are many such facts. But you have no
mathematical proof For any of them.
For example, do you drive a car? Have you ever been
a passenger in a car? Every time you do, you are betting your life on
1. Principles of physics, chemistry, electronics,
and the competence
of the many engineers and
mechanics who use those principles to
design, build, and maintain your
car, the cars driven by other
drivers, and the roads and
bridges over which you drive.
2. The competence of the other drivers to control
their cars
and not run into you (or at
least your competence and the
ability of your car and your
driving skills to avoid them).
3. The social habits and conventions of other
drivers to stay in
their lanes and not take too
many risks in the way they drive
and how they observe speed
limits and conventions.
Just take an inventory of the actions in your daily life
and the all the assumptions and beliefs on which you bet your life.
Have you ever flown in an airplane? If so, you've
bet your life on many facts about our planet, its geography, and how other
people behave -- pilots, mechanics, air traffic controllers, etc.
The fact that we're all on the same planet is one that is
worth pondering. But it's irrational to doubt it.
John
_________________________________________________________________
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