SUO: Re: More KIF-ified Ontology Content
pat hayes wrote:
>
> There is an alternative conclusion, which is that alternative ways
> of thinking about a topic might all be equally valid and coherent,
> even though they differ from one another. The proposal to find a
> single coherent upper-level ontology then amounts to an insistence
> that all but one of these alternative ways of thinking are wrong.
> This is a kind of intellectual fascism which has never succeeded
> in the past several thousand years, and is unlikely to make progress
> now either. Maybe the SUO should focus on ways of allowing alternative
> conceptions of the world to co-exist, rather than trying to legislate
> which of them is 'right'. That approach would at least have the merit
> of providing a standard that more than a small fraction of the user base
> could use without discomfort.
>
> Amalgamating theories will be difficult, just as most large-scale
> engineering tasks are difficult. There is no magic way around
> this fact of life.
>
> Pat Hayes
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> IHMC (850)434 8903 home
> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
> Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
> phayes@ai.uwf.edu
> http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤
Pat,
Thank you so much for saying this.
Any suggestions that you might have
about how to achieve sundry forms of
amalgamation among theoretical POV's
and co-existence among alternatives,
magic or no magic, would be greatly
appreciated.
Plenipotential Regards,
Jon Awbrey
¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤~~~~~~~~~¤