|
Will the next person who wants to weigh in kindly change the subject line to something more appropriate. Thanks.=ppy
--
On Mar 14, 2013 4:02 PM, "Obrst, Leo J." <lobrst@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> John,
>
> 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.
>
> 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/.
>
> Some say dispositions introduce modal notions, but I'm not yet inclined to that.
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks,
> Leo
> >-----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/ (01)
|