SUO: Re: Re: Question about Example in KR Book
----- Original Message -----
From: "John F. Sowa" <sowa@bestweb.net>
To: "Jay Halcomb" <jhalcomb8@attbi.com>
Cc: "SUO" <standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org>; <cg@cs.uah.edu>
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 11:12
Subject: SUO: Re: Question about Example in KR Book
>
> 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.
Well, 'investigating something real' sounds like just common sense.
>
> I would define nominalism as the position that scientific
> theories are summaries of descriptions of observations.
Since you speakc of 'summaries ... of observations' and mention Hume,
I (like TJ) wonder if you are alluding (at least in part)
to Hume's doubts about induction -- the 'justification of induction'
problem.
I don't know that this has ever been solved to everyone's satisfaction.
For example:
http://www.dchart.demon.co.uk/HPS/Topics/indjustify.html
Some entries on Hume:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/hume/
and perhaps
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/miracles/
Can you be more specific about what you are inveighing against in Hume,
please?
I am trying to link up/contrast your versions of 'realism' and 'nominalism'.
>
> 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.
>
You seem to mean 'scientific realism' (not a metaphysical realism). See:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/scientific-realism/
Is it, for example, 'operationalism' which you object to? Is it that you
wish, say, to advocate 'essentialism'? Or is it the 'social constructivism'
which you object to? Is this where your 'investigating somethin real'
comment comes in?
> There are, of course, many different versions and qualifications
> of both nominalism and realism. But that is a very long story.
Yes, very long.
>
> John
>
>
>
>