John, (01)
But it's also the case that "disposition" becomes/has become significant in
metaphysics, and thus perhaps derivatively (or the converse) in ontology:
perhaps the influence is mutual. It's tricky. I myself was convinced until
fairly recently that it was a kind of spurious notion, introducing a kind of
teleology into ontology (why do you need dispositions when you have
properties?), hence the earlier thread I introduced in the Ontolog Forum last
year. Why the new interest? Because I became more interested in causation
issues. (02)
I don't think the philosophical dispositionalists are "behaviorists" in your
terminology (or mine, which I probably share with you, and revolt against,
remembering the Chomsky arguments). But they are a reaction against Humean
ontology, I think. See: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dispositions/. (03)
Some say dispositions introduce modal notions, but I'm not yet inclined to
that. (04)
I can't say I'm satisfied yet with what I've read about dispositions, but it is
a background reading/thinking activity I'm engaged on. (05)
Thanks,
Leo (06)
>-----Original Message-----
>From: ontology-summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ontology-
>summit-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of John F Sowa
>Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2013 6:10 PM
>To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subject: Re: [ontology-summit] Thank you.
>
>Dear Matthew, Pavithra, and Ian,
>
>This thread is one more example where many discussions of ontology
>begin to address a very important issue, but without using a suitable
>foundation for dealing with it.
>
>MW
>> I think [Pavithra] nicely explained why there is a need to talk in terms
>> of capabilities. I agree all the things you mention are also part of
>> the mix, but capabilities gives you a way to bring it together.
>
>I agree that the notion of 'capability' is critical to many issues
>in ontology, but it brings with it many associated notions.
>
>PK
>> A capability can be translated as a function or service that meets certain
>> set of requirements as defined by stake holders/organization/interested
>parties .
>
>But as Ian said, a capability is not a function or service.
>
>IB
>> The concept of capability as a tool for strategic planning originates in the
>military.
>
>The concept is much older, but the recognition that capabilities are
>critical for strategy is important.
>
>IB
>> The whole idea is to allow strategic thinking without resorting to design
>> of processes. Capabilities should be expressed in terms of outcomes -
>> what, not how.
>
>I agree, but I'd add the word 'why'. When the military (or anybody
>else) raises issues about strategy, the fundamental question is *why?*
>
>The questions What? and How? raise tactical issues: "What?" asks
>for a description of the desired outcome. "How?" asks for a method
>for achieving the outcome -- i.e., getting from where we are to where
>we want to be.
>
>But "Why?" is the penetrating question that addresses strategy.
>The questions "What?" and "How?" are tactical questions. But "Why?"
>get to the heart of the matter: *desire.* What is the reason that
>makes one outcome more desirable than another? Instead of 'desire',
>use the related words 'goal', 'purpose', 'intention', or 'reason'.
>
>IB
>> The concept has now found much wider use in the commercial world -
>> see http://hbr.org/2010/06/the-coherence-premium/ar/1 and it also
>> seems to have found a home in IT for portfolio management and
>> application rationalisation,
>
>Yes, but. In every one of those applications, the question "Why?"
>is always lurking behind the scenes.
>
>IB
>> It's a very tricky concept to model in an ontology.
>
>I agree that most ontologists ignore it -- at their peril.
>
>Peirce addressed it in depth. But his terminology of Firstness,
>Secondness, and Thirdness scares people. That is why I suggest
>the question words what, how, and why.
>
>The question "What?" can be answered with a monadic predicate
>that describes something by itself. The question "How" can be
>answered with a dyadic relation of some agent (1) acting upon
>something (2). But the question *Why?* always requires a triadic
>relation, implicit or explicit, in the answer: Somebody (1) did
>or will do something (2) for some purpose or reason (3).
>
>IB
>> Chris Partridge did a lot of work on this for us - esp.
>> around the dispositional aspects of capability.
>
>The word 'disposition' was introduced by behaviorists to avoid
>coming to grips with purposes and intentions. Instead of saying
>that X has a purpose or intention to do something, they just
>say that X has a "disposition" to do it.
>
>Whenever anybody uses the word 'disposition', I just ask "Why?"
>And I keep repeating "Why?" until they break down and say explicitly
>what was the purpose, intention, or reason.
>
>It's also the most important question that Socrates asked. It drove
>some powerful Athenians crazy. That's why they gave him the poison.
>
>John
>
>___________________________________________________________
>______
>Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
>Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-
>summit/
>Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/
>Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-
>bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
>Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (07)
_________________________________________________________________
Msg Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontology-summit/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontology-summit/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontology-summit-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Community Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/OntologySummit2013/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?OntologySummit2013
Community Portal: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ (08)
|