SUO: Re: Question about Example in KR Book
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
> Jo[h]n,
>
> Could you help me understand the relevance of these postings
> to the work of this group. I would define this as "directly
> relating to any of the three starter documents."
>
> Taking this posting as an example, I don't see any reference to
> any of these documents. I don't see any recommended changes to
> wording of any of the documents.
>
> Of course, any advance or consensus in ontology could be shown
> to be relevant to these documents, but that's unfairly stretching
> the rule. That approach will never get us to a completed document.
> Maybe no other approach will either, but that does not justify turning
> this into a general ontology discussion list.
>
> If you have a change you want to propose to a document,
> you should explain it from the perspective of the document,
> and you should propose specific wording changes. You can
> then debate the merits and seek to build consensus. That's
> how documents are advanced.
>
> So, taking this posting as an example, please explain how this relates.
>
> JA, quoting Jim Schoening
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
John F. Sowa wrote:
>
> Fred,
>
> I agree with Popper's statement as a purely theoretical hypothesis:
>
> "My thesis is that realism is neither demonstrable nor refutable.
> Realism like anything outside logic and finite arithmetic is not
> demonstrable; but while empirical scientific theories are
> refutable, realism is not even refutable."
>
> Exactly the same claim can be made about solipsism and nominalism.
> It is possible to construct consistent theories about all observable
> phenomena on a metaphysical foundation of pure solipsism, pure
> realism, or pure nominalism.
>
> What really matters is the metaphysics you use in everday life.
> What metaphysics do you implicitly assume when the answer is
> a matter of life or death?
>
> A true solipsist, for example, would have no qualms about jumping
> out of a window or walking in front of a speeding train. True
> nominalists don't believe that the laws of physics are anything
> more than summaries of past observations. They could never drive
> a car because they couldn't predict what would happen if they
> turned the steering wheel or stepped on the brakes.
>
> Anybody who drives a car but claims to be a nominalist is
> either a liar or a fool.
>
> John
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o