ontology-summit
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontology-summit] Dispositions [Was: Thank you.]

To: ontology-summit@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
From: Michael Gruninger <gruninger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 11:17:17 -0400
Message-id: <51433B7D.4010200@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

As interesting as this discussion may be, it has drifted away from the topic
of the Ontology Summit.    (01)

Please migrate this discussion to ontolog-forum.    (02)

thank you,
Michael Gruninger
Co-Chair Ontology Summit 2013    (03)

On 13-03-15 6:18 AM, John F Sowa wrote:
> Ravi,
>
> The points you mention get into many important, but thorny issues
> of metaphysics.  I believe that they deserve all the attention that
> philosophers have devoted to them over the centuries.
>
> RS
>> I reached conclusion that nature of objects - deserves study of
>> 'disposition' as it stimulates understanding of underlying nature...
> That is an important issue for philosophers to discuss.
>
> But -- and this is a very big *BUT* -- most people who need to build
> and maintain ontologies are *not* professional philosophers.  They
> need reliable guidelines that they can understand.  For them, words
> like 'disposition' or 'essence', which philosophers have been kicking
> around for centuries are *worse* than useless as guidelines.
>
> RS
>> I have yet to relate this concept to events and processes, thinking
>> and knowledge representations that also can use ontology constructs.
> I would encourage ontologists to read what the philosophers have written
> about these issues.  But I would not recommend that they get bogged
> down in the same swamp where even professional philosophers get stuck
> (or eaten by alligators -- AKA other philosophers).
>
> For example, I have often discussed Peirce's terms, Firstness,
> Secondness, and Thirdness, which are even more confusing than
> dispositions and essences.  But I have learned to replace those
> words by simple question words:  What?  How?  Why?
>
> The answer to What? gives you Firstness.  The answer to How? gives
> you Secondness.  And the answer to Why? gives you Thirdness.
> The Why? question is the one that gives most ontologists the most
> trouble, but it focuses attention on the real issues.
>
> Recommendation for ontologists:  Don't get hung up on big words
> like 'disposition', which even professional philosophers can't
> agree on.  Instead, use simple questions that direct attention
> to answers stated in words that everybody can understand.
>
> Unfortunately, finding simplicity is not a simple task.
>
> 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/
>
>    (04)


_________________________________________________________________
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/     (05)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>