On Sep 22, 2009, at 1:25 AM, John F. Sowa wrote: (01)
> Pat,
>
> I don't want to get into an argument about philosophy, but I would
> like to point out that this kind of argument arises in any analysis
> of an informal statement during the process of formalization. (02)
Sure, but my point was that statements of the form "a table is ..."
which locate some ordinary object in a philosophically defined set of
distinctions (" a table is a continuant", "a table is a physical
manifestation", " a table is a spatiotemporal extension", etc.) are
all helpful only insofar as they identify a framework being proposed
to make high-level classifications, often with a philosophical agenda.
But these classifications are always hostage to debate, and are never
matters of simple fact. So such assertions should never be stated as
though they were simple facts, because to do so is to make a
philosophical claim, and that is like dripping honey on an ants nest. (03)
However, it seems that I misunderstood Hajo's intention in his use of
the word "phenomenon", a misunderstanding for which I apologize. I
thought I detected a philosophical agenda, whereas it seems he meant
only to be neutral with respect to the object/event distinction. It is
true, we lack a good general term for pieces of the physical world
conceived this broadly. (04)
>
> PH> Hajo, seems to me that this is a good illustration of why
>> ontology needs to avoid philosophy :-) Its almost impossible
>> to make a philosophical assertion that isn't controversial.
>
> HR> However, a quantity is a metrological aspect of a phenomenon,
>> such as "the mass of my table" ("mass" is a metrological aspect
>
> PH> Whoa. Mass is an 'aspect'? Surely not. Mass is, after all,
>> one of the fundamental physical quantities.... And in any case,
>> why do you consider it to be 'metrological'? (Or does this
>> simply mean, capable of being measured?)
>
> This kind of discussion arises in any subject that has not yet been
> sufficiently analyzed and codified in a systematic terminology.
>
> Socrates didn't create the confusion, but he had a methodology
> for dealing with it: sit down, analyze the subject, and define
> the terms. Alternatively, look at a good reference manual that
> records the results of experts in the field who have made the
> effort to define their terms. (05)
Defining the terms does not work, chiefly because there are no
definitions. Going to the experts in the field is a good start, I
agree, but one needs to avoid the local intellectual wars and customs
as well. The heat generated here by the distinction between a quantity
and how to measure it is a good example of the kind of thing I mean. (06)
Pat (07)
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
> Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
> Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard
>
> (08)
------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax
FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile
phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes (09)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/uom-ontology-std/
Subscribe: mailto:uom-ontology-std-join@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Config/Unsubscribe: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/uom-ontology-std/
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/work/UoM/
Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?UoM_Ontology_Standard (010)
|