RE: SUO: RE: More KIF-ified Ontology Content
Hi Pat,
I seem to have struck a raw nerve.
I have just got back to the raft of messages my original email seems to have
provoked.
I have looked through them and I think that there may be some
misunderstandings, which I will try to clarify.
You 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.
I do not see how '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.' Any more than arguing that a law that says we
drive on the right side of the road, says that driving on the left side is
inherently wrong.
It seems to me that there are a number of possible different enterprises
here, let me characterise them as:
- philosophical,
- scientific/engineering, and
- everyday.
It is true that the goal of some attempts in philosophy is to arrive at a
'right' answer - and that they have failed. Indeed some philosophers think
in terms of the current best effort (e.g. David Lewis justifying his views
on possible worlds.
The history of science sets us a different example. It seems that what
happens (according to Kuhn et al) that the development of science requires
the choice of a framework (what he calls a paradigm). An example might be
Newton's choice of absolute space. These frameworks are essential for
progress - if the lessons of the last few thousand years - and particularly
the last five hundred years - are anything to go by.
As these historians and philosophers of science have pointed out, choosing
the framework is as much a political as a rational process, and involves
persuading the community that the framework is the 'right' one. Typically it
involves a choice between several competing theories. Furthermore this is
only ever successful if the framework is sufficiently good (where this is
characterised in a number of ways). I'm not sure how this qualifies as
intellectual fascism.
If we look at everyday uses of the concepts dealt with by philosophy and
science, then here there is a plethora of theories - and probably always
will be. So adopting a 'standard' in one field of work does not eliminate
variety in others.
You wrote (in a subsequent email):
'However, I honestly cannot reconcile what you say with what Chris says.
What is "the ontological paradigm" if it is not the One True Ontology?'
An ontological paradigm would be the one accepted ontology - but like all
science subject to both evolution and revolution.
My concern is that the work involved in producing a single coherent general
theory is enormous. I suspect that this is way beyond the resources of the
SUO (hence my vote at set up was ABSTAIN). If no real effort is made to
produce a high level then the work is surely doomed.
My guess is that science's method of working (with a single framework) is
because the cost of working with a variety of frameworks is astronomic. As
philosophy has shown the high level 'concepts' are inter-related and working
out these for each of the choices on each of the topics is a really
substantial piece of work - especially given that there are not really any
coherent theories covering the full range.
My concern is very different from yours - and it focusses on a different
domain/purpose. Enterprises are finding that they need to link together
systems, and the biggest problem they are having is at the semantic level
(Mike Uschold pointed this out in an earlier email). They are going to
develop something to do this - unless someone introduces them to the work
done by philosophers et al. (and the fact that there are a range of
choices - and how these choices interlink) we are going to end up with a
standard that is unaware of the substantial issues and alternatives.
Regards
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: phayes@ai.uwf.edu [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu]
Sent: 05 December 2000 20:04
To: Chris Partridge
Cc: standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
Subject: Re: SUO: RE: More KIF-ified Ontology Content
>[Chris Partridge:]
>This is closely related to another point. This is not the only way of
>thinking about holes - as shown by comments on the book (some, if I recall
>correctly, by David Lewis). If you have a different high level ontology,
>then you will end up with different axioms. This is a good illustration of
>the importance of having a clear high level ontology.
>Obviously if another 'theory' takes a different stance which leads to
>different ontological structures, and neither this nor the other theory,
>makes clear its high level ontological commitment - then amalgamating the
>theories will be more difficult.
>
>This is a general point that I think and others have raised before. Unless
>we get agreement on the high level structure (the ontological paradigm) and
>this will involve hard choices then I do not see how we can expect to
>amalgamate the lower level theories.
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