Re: SUO Quo Vadis
Gary,
Jay below noticed only one absurdity in your shaky speculation on the
fundamental isues of reality, knowledge, and language. There are also many
other follies which you allow yourself and in which you seemingly indulge.
Since we are all here for the cause of SUO, I suggest to avoid the deep
metaphysical theories requiring more profound and deep knowledge than one
can discover in your missives and better concentrate on the actual issues of
SUO.
Regards,
Azamat
EIS Encyclopedic Intelligent Systems Ltd
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jay Halcomb" <jhalcomb8@comcast.net>
To: "Gary Berg-Cross" <gary.berg-cross@EM-I.COM>;
<standard-upper-ontology@IEEE.ORG>
Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 6:53 PM
Subject: Re: SUO Quo Vadis
> Re (Berg-Cross): "This was/has been the basis of the
> analytic-deductive approach which implied that all truths can be deduced
> a priori. "
>
> This seems odd. Surely few if any, including Kant, have ever claimed that
> *all* truths can be known a priori (by whom? or what?)!?! If so, who
> claimed
> this and how? -Jay
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Gary Berg-Cross" <gary.berg-cross@EM-I.COM>
> To: <standard-upper-ontology@IEEE.ORG>
> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 07:12
> Subject: RE: SUO Quo Vadis
>
>
>> A few quick thoughts on what type of objectivity we may be
>> able to muster following up John's comments.
>>
>> "Subjective" and "objective" can have different meanings and
>> probably can be fruitfully discusses as a continuum, but
>> "objective", as an adjective in many contexts, implies something
>> real "having reality independent of the mind" whereas subject is
>> mind dependent. Subjective things involve thoughts and propositions,
>> hence have a "reality" as perceived by mind "rather than independent
>> of mind". To start we all want an objective ontology since it
>> implies we will all believe in it as a truth unblemished by human
>> intervention for particular motives (such as those used in
>> marketing, politics at any level, or negotiation). The consensus
>> (perhaps unreflected) conception of science is to eliminate of
>> the personal and subjective, and the attainment of the
>> objective. A question is whether we can move towards such a
>> goal with "negotiation" for example, which seems arbitrary.
>> Are some people not seeing reality and just arguing or are
>> they raising important clarifications to what we can say
>> objectively?
>>
>> Often by objective we are thinking of something like Descartes/Leibniz's
>> rational objectivity (as discussed in Churchman, 1971). This may be too
>> primitive. Rational, as in rational decisions as in rational ontological
>> commitments, by this strict definition would mean that decisions are
>> consistent with/grounded on "proven truths". This is based on the
>> contention that there is an objective truth common to us all. Kant, for
>> example, considered the objective to involve universal and necessary
>> conclusions (analytic). This was/has been the basis of the
>> analytic-deductive approach which implied that all truths can be deduced
>> a priori. As reflected on by the Pragmatists, use of the terms
>> "rational" ,"objective" "universal" has issues. Rational behavior, for
>> example, rather than being grounded firmly, is often one person doing
>> what others expect. In ontology creation this sometimes seems to me that
>> we are using some expected standard of content and form, even if there
>> are alternative arguments to negotiate about these.
>>
>> Much of the argument now has a Cognitive Sciences flavor - how a common
>> mentality might develop for example or how group decisions are reached.
>> Studies of rationality make the traditional notion of rationality recede
>> as a typical human process. It seems to many, however, that what we
>> consider rational judgments (such as ontological commitments) involve
>> social processes like argumentation and can't be reached without
>> definitive arguments for or against a position. Or as Nozick (1993)
>> discusses, rationality depends on the reasons for holding a position,
>> and that it is natural to think of rationality as a goal-directed
>> action, which takes one far afield from the starting idea of
>> "objective". But practically, this can be a principled use of cognition
>> where goals act as cognitive filters that give us the ability to cope
>> with complex decision involving large numbers of alternatives such as we
>> have in ontologies. We may start out with each of us holding different
>> beliefs but it is not an arbitrary use of personal goals for a group to
>> negotiate and share criteria for judgment.
>>
>>
>> Gary Berg-Cross
>> EM&I
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
>> [mailto:standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org] On Behalf Of John F. Sowa
>> Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 12:13 AM
>> To: Rob Freeman
>> Cc: pevnev@juno.com; SCOTT@DE.IBM.COM; standard-upper-ontology@IEEE.ORG
>> Subject: Re: Fwd: SUO Quo Vadis
>>
>> Rob,
>>
>> I did not say that ontology is subjective. It may
>> depend on the application, and it may depend on
>> human needs and human attributes. But that does
>> *not* make it subjective.
>>
>> > John thinks ontology is subjective. Implicitly that
>> > it is the product of a process of perception, and
>> > thus human, too.
>>
>> For example, suppose that the purpose is to design
>> a car that handles well, is reliable, has features
>> that are easy to use, and is attractive to an average
>> consumer.
>>
>> Many of those requirements depend on human needs and
>> preferences, but they are *not* subjective. Being
>> subjective would mean dependent on the whims of a
>> single individual. But being designed for human needs
>> and preferences requires testing with a large number
>> of human beings by objective measurements.
>>
>> It is possible to do objective tests of the kinds of
>> cat foods that appeal to a wide range of cats or the
>> kinds of human foods that appeal to a wide range of
>> humans. Those are species-specific tests that can
>> be done in an objective manner.
>>
>> Following is another note that I posted to the ONTAC
>> forum. It might help clarify some of the issues.
>>
>> John
>