Re: D1. Separate computer science ontology from philosophical ontology
Rob,
I just want to clarify one point:
JFS>> 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.
RF> Why should the criteria used for these purposes concern us here?
>
> Informed practitioners in these fields know how fallible their
> judgments are...
All humans are fallible, and lawyers and scientists are no exception.
Both science and law have numerous failures, and improvements in those
processes are highly desirable. But they're a useful compromise that
can, when carried out in public by intelligent participants and fair
judges, lead to reasonable results.
But note the caveat: "when carried out in public by intelligent
participants and fair judges". Unfortunately, that's not always
the case.
John