RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)

["John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>]

Ian,

Matthew's comments support the point I was making by quoting
Peirce:  you cannot escape metaphysics by pretending that
something called "naturalism" solves all the problems.
On the contrary, it just sweeps the most serious problems
under the rug, where they can grow enough toxic mold to
destroy the whole system.

As just one point:  The most "natural" of all the things that
an SUO must support are the natural sciences, such as physics,
chemistry, biology, and the engineering disciplines based on
them.  Unfortunately, you cannot put all of those subjects
into a single monolithic ontology because they are inconsistent
with one another.

We all know about the "vision" of unified science, but it is
more of a hope than a reality.  Every subfield of every branch
of science and engineering is based on approximations that
make it inconsistent with every other.  If you put all of them
into the same theory, you get inconsistent garbage.  If you try
to add "commonsense" to that garbage, you get more of the same.
These issues cannot be solved by waving a magic wand of
"naturalism" over them.

As I said to Eric, a few random email comments are insufficient
to demonstrate the seriousness of the issues.  I'll write a
more substantial critique when I can make the time for it.

John