SUO: Re: (ELP's summary of MRW's standards experience) Was: A NEW FUNDAMENTALLYDIFFERENT FORMAL MOTION...
Matthew and Eric,
The following interchange is crucial:
ELP> And since we haven't shown a great amount of unity,
> we can't yet claim that having more designers is better.
> MW: Not as long as everyone wants to be in charge. One of
> the reasons I support John Sowa's proposal is that I think
> it will support the development of convergence, but allow
> a large number of people to stay on board whilst the
> consensus emerges.
I agree with Eric that any brilliant new theory can only be
developed by a single individual (or at most two or three closely
attuned colleagues). An example would be Whitehead's ontology,
which is brilliant, but highly idiosyncratic. I believe that
Whitehead's approach holds the key to resolving many of the
thorny issues we have been facing, but it will take a lot of
time to iron out the "rough edges" and build a consensus.
Therefore, I agree with Matthew that the best approach we can
take toward a practical ontology that people can accept is one
that allows anybody to put their pet theories into the common
registry. Then we can allow time for testing, comparison,
and analysis to show us how to proceed.
Trying to resolve a serious scientific dispute by voting is
as foolish in ontology as it is in nuclear physics. If you
can't resolve a dispute, the best we can do is to accommodate
all the options until further evidence becomes available.
John