Re: SUO: RE: ontology as science
Bill, Julian, Jon, et al.,
I don't think that we disagree. I didn't want to get pushed
into making a hard and fast claim that ontology *is* a science,
as opposed to anything else that one might call it. And for
that matter, the term "science" is so broad that it gets applied
to a lot of dubious cases, such as "military science".
What I mainly wanted to claim is that there are scientific
principles of gathering evidence and testing hypotheses against
the evidence that can be applied to ontology. I also believe
that a great deal of the evidence for the kinds of things that
exist is the primary job of the specialized sciences, and
ontologists can make reference to that work.
There is also a lot of engineering involved in the choice of
representations that can facilitate reasoning, even though
such choices might be neutral with regard to what exists.
And finally, there is an enormous role for mathematics, logic,
linguistics, and philosophy -- as we have argued ad nauseam.
Bottom line: I think we should recognize all these influences,
but I'd rather not get hung up on exactly where we should put
ontology in the pantheon of academic disciplines.
John