Re: SUO: *Date 19 Mar 2002 -- Modus Ponens
On 3/19/02 03:17, "Jean-Luc Delatre" <jld@club-internet.fr> wrote:
> Excellent Jon!
> Are you joining me against the SUO crowd?
Is this important to you? To Jon? To Chris Lofting? If so, I again extend
my invitation to you and all like you stop talking and fire up a research
project of your own and build something. Then let the rest of us infidels
run the code on some real world problems. We'll let you know if it works.
> Some of the "assumptions" that, to me, seem questionable and shared
> by most people involved in ontology projects (alas, not only SUO!) are:
>
> 1) There exist ultimately a *perfect* all encompassing ontology that allows
> describing everything, and we have to chase for it however distant it be.
Well, I'm assuming you object to the search for the "perfect" ontology that
allows describing everything on the grounds that it's bad philosophy. That
in turn leads me to believe you have a counter-philosophy. And in this you
do not disappoint:
> 2) There *must* be for each concept a *true* denomination and everybody
> have to agree to use it.
You (along with all other anti-realists) assume that what is being talked
about when building ontologies is "concepts" (your word, not mine). In this
you deny that there is anything real at all - the only thing that counts is
how we talk about it. You have taken a position, whether you realize it or
not, which goes far beyond what the poor chaps working away on this list to
produce something which might or might not work are doing. It is you who
are obsessed with philosophical questions and not them.
So, since you are so willing and adept at making "speedy" (your word, not
mine) judgments about what people are and are not doing in this mailing
list, allow me make one of my own:
Some of the "assumptions" that, to me, seem questionable and shared by most
people involved in CRITIQUING ontology projects are:
1) If one doesn't like what some other person has to say about a subject,
then that other person's position is labeled as bad philosophy, or "deeply
ingrained" prejudice.
2) One's own position is simply the TRUTH.
> There is also a funny anecdote (reported by Bateson or someone of
> his bunch, don't remember) about the german speaking inhabitants
> of Tyrol getting angry about italian speakers calling a horse
> "cavallo" where it's obvious the right name is "pferd".
No, the right name is "Pferd". After all, we're talking about names (your
word, not mine) and not "concepts". Versuch's noch mal.
.bill