Re: D1. Separate computer science ontology from philosophical ontology
On Jan 26, 2008 11:19 PM, John F. Sowa <sowa@bestweb.net> wrote:
>
> Whenever disagreements about words arise, the simplest solution is
> to avoid using those words and restate the issues in other terms.
Excellent idea.
> Instead of arguing about the word 'objective', I'll simply use the
> criterion of being observable by a disinterested third party who
> examines evidence of the kind that would be admissible in a court
> of law or scientific publication.
Why should the criteria used for these purposes concern us here?
Informed practitioners in these fields know how fallible their
judgments are. For most purposes the kinds of philosophical niceties
we are discussing do not matter to them. That does not mean they don't
exist.
In a rustic moment a lawyer friend of mine once quoted the practice of
law as "precise logic applied to xxxx."
Lawyers know their judgments are in large part arbitrary. Like
democracy, the most that can be said for the law is that it is better
than the alternatives.
As for science, whole books have been written about the different ways
observations can be interpreted. One of my favorite stories is of the
discoverer of oxygen, who to his dying day apparently thought what he
really saw was a lack of phlogistic.
If observations were not subject to interpretation, there would be no
history to science. We would have all just woken up one day and
written down what we saw.
Even observation can be disputed. But as a gift to you I won't dispute
observation, only any "meaning" we attach to observation.
> I agree that all reference sources contain errors, and I would
> never regard a definition in the OED or MW 3rd to be beyond
> criticism. But as a starting point for discussion, they are
> not bad, and they're better than most of the definitions that
> have been proposed on this and other email lists.
I don't think I mentioned errors. It is not a word I would seek to
use. Inconsistencies maybe. Incompleteness for sure.
As a starting point for discussion a dictionary definition might be
good. If discussion is what you want.
My whole thesis is that definitions are by their nature partial,
_created by the perceiver_ in conjunction with all kinds of
information, including his or her experience, and the particular
circumstances of perception.
This is great for discussion. If your task is to complete something
which is by its nature partial, you'll be discussing till the ends of
time.
> RF> Either way, my answer to this thread is: don't separate
> > computer science from philosophical theory. If for no other
> > reason than because you don't need to.
>
> I certainly agree. And this is an excellent point of agreement
> on which to end this thread.
Saw this too late.
Glad you agree.
-Rob