SUO: Re: Meta*Question About Example In KR Book
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
John,
Now you know that I support your right to ask any questions, raise any issues,
discuss any topics that you very please, but just for the sake of sharing that
POSH "Discursory Equivalence Class" (DEC) with the rest of us in Steerage,
could you please say a few words as a Guide for the Perplexed on behalf
of why the Authorised Chair's "Constraint", cited below, which I am
sure that he intended to apply to the whole Target Audience with
equal force of application and justice under the rule of law,
should apply to others, but not to you, or else, as another
alternative that you may elect to choose for your liberal
deliveration, why it should apply to none, if not to you.
> 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.
>
> Jim Schoening
Omnia Gratia In Futuro,
Jon Awbrey
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
John F. Sowa wrote:
>
> Jay,
>
> > Do let us try to avoid strawmen. Are the theses named by these
> > terms (nominalism, realism) contradictories or contraries?
> > What exactly do you mean by 'nominalism' and by 'realism'?
>
> I am not answering strawmen. I am directing my attacks at
> poor misguided nominalists, such as David Hume, Ernst Mach,
> the 20th century behaviorists, and most of the 20th century
> analytic philososphers. Very few, if any, successful
> scientists are nominalists -- they actually believe that
> they are investigating something real.
>
> I would define nominalism as the position that scientific
> theories are summaries of descriptions of observations.
>
> I would define realism as the position that thoroughly tested
> scientific theories describe something that really exists --
> not perfectly, but to a degree of approximation that can be
> measured and quantified.
>
> There are, of course, many different versions and qualifications
> of both nominalism and realism. But that is a very long story.
>
> John
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o