SUO: RE: ontology as science
Bill,
I believe that the following point contains the crux of
the misunderstanding:
WB> However, #2 and #3 will always be subjective and therefore
> of questionable testability from a scientific perspective.
Yes, the way people use words depends on their subjective
inclinations. But other people can study the data about
how people use words in a purely objective way.
For example, the behavior of any species, from bacteria to
cats to monkeys, can be studied in purely objective ways,
even though that behavior is based on those organisms' internal
(i.e., subjective) processes.
As an outside observer, a lexicographer can be just as
objective as any other scientist, and the results are every
bit as objectively testable and repeatable as the results
of any other science.
In fact, linguists can reconstruct ancient languages, such
as Egyptian hieroglyphics, from purely objective data without
ever meeting or talking with an ancient Egyptian. And the
reconstructions can be and have been independently verified
by other linguists.
WB> With respect to semantics, however, it [lexicography]
> cannot take into account the semantic drift of words in a
> language as a language evolves over time. Nor can it take
> into account different languages except as a distinct data
> sets.
What??? Lexicographers analyze semantic drift in exactly
the same way that geologists analyze continental drift.
They can even make predictions about which kinds of terms
are most likely to drift and which kinds tend to be stable.
For example, value judgments, such as "good", "bad", or
"beautiful" tend to drift most rapidly, while references to
physical objects tend to be preserved over much longer
periods. The Indoeuropean word for salmon (lachs) is still
common in modern languages, as are the words for mother,
father, sister, brother, beech tree, etc. Since there were
no salmon in India, the word "lachs" was transferred to the
the color from which we have the English "lacquer". And the
Indoeuropean word "sneg" from which we get English "snow"
was transferred to a word for "slippery" in India.
The German word for "good" (gut) is cognate with the English,
but bad (boese) and beautiful (schoen) are not. And the Latin
"bonus", "malus", and "pulcher" have no relation to the
Germanic terms, the Greek terms, the Slavic terms, or the
Sanskrit terms. Even "pulcher" was replaced by "bellus"
in modern Romance languages.
The words for abstractions, such as legal and sacred terms,
have also been preserved for thousands of years (including
the words "legal" and "sacred", which are derived from
Indoeuropean roots of similar meanings).
All of this is objectively testable and repeatable by
independent observers.
John