RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)

[Ian Niles <iniles@teknowledge.com>]

John,

	Comments below.

-Ian

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John F. Sowa [mailto:sowa@bestweb.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 24, 2003 9:33 AM
> To: West, Matthew R SITI-ITPSIE; Ian Niles; John F. Sowa; Erik Larson;
> Fowler, Julian; Jon Awbrey; Burkett, Bill;
> standard-upper-ontology@ieee.org
> Subject: RE: SUO: Monolithic ontologies (was ontology as science)
> 
> 
> Ian,
> 
> Matthew's comments support the point I was making by quoting
> Peirce:  you cannot escape metaphysics by pretending that
> something called "naturalism" solves all the problems.
> On the contrary, it just sweeps the most serious problems
> under the rug, where they can grow enough toxic mold to
> destroy the whole system.

You and Matthew have done a good job of marshalling metaphors and scriptural
references, but I have yet to see a substantive argument for your position
that a metaphysics more robust than naturalism is needed to support one of
the applications outlined in the SUO Scope and Purpose statement.  I guess
I'll just have to wait for the critique you promise below.

> 
> As just one point:  The most "natural" of all the things that
> an SUO must support are the natural sciences, such as physics,
> chemistry, biology, and the engineering disciplines based on
> them.  Unfortunately, you cannot put all of those subjects
> into a single monolithic ontology because they are inconsistent
> with one another.

I don't think so.  It's true that some scientific and mathematical theories
are inconsistent with other theories.  For example, quantum mechanics is
inconsistent with the general theory of relativity.  However,
inconsistencies like this one do not imply that one cannot develop a single,
overarching, and internally consistent ontology.  Part of the problem here,
I think, is that we have different views of what an ontology should be.
Some favor the formalization of common sense a la Cyc, some want formal
representations of scientific theories a la Carnap, and others (like me)
just want to formalize the semantic content of the most important and most
high-level concepts.  I think if you adopt the latter view of what an
ontology should be, the inconsistencies that you're worried about simply
won't find their way into the conceptual structure.  

> 
> We all know about the "vision" of unified science, but it is
> more of a hope than a reality.  Every subfield of every branch
> of science and engineering is based on approximations that
> make it inconsistent with every other.  If you put all of them
> into the same theory, you get inconsistent garbage.  If you try
> to add "commonsense" to that garbage, you get more of the same.
> These issues cannot be solved by waving a magic wand of
> "naturalism" over them.

Again, I think we have different views of what an ontology should be.  If
you're trying to follow in the footsteps of Cyc or Carnap, then, I agee,
you're in for a world of trouble.

> 
> As I said to Eric, a few random email comments are insufficient
> to demonstrate the seriousness of the issues.  I'll write a
> more substantial critique when I can make the time for it.

I look forward to reading it.

> 
> John
>