o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o (01)
ROL. Discussion Note 3 (02)
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o (03)
I'm not saying that I'll paste it on my wall,
or gif or png or svg it and make a screen-saver
of it, not just yet, but I would like the snap
this pic -- "Three Ships Passing In The Night"
seems like it'd make a good caption, Captain,
for when I get more time to reflect on it. (04)
Over and out ... (05)
Jon Awbrey (06)
CC: Arisbe List, Inquiry List, Ontolog Forum (07)
AA = Azamat Abdoullaev
CM = Chris Menzel
PH = Pat Hayes (08)
AA: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-08/msg00256.html
PH: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-08/msg00261.html
CM: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/2007-08/msg00276.html (09)
AA: There are generally two types of logics:
Content-oriented and Form-oriented,
as much as two kinds of semantics:
reality-centered and just so-called
formal semantics. (010)
AA: The first one is reality-driven logic based on
ontological axioms and assumptions, where the
universe of discourse is the world, its kinds,
levels, pieces, fragments. (011)
AA: The second one, more familiar here on this forum, is
nonreality oriented logic based on formal assumptions,
where the universe of discourse is logical objects and
processes. Although it may refer to anything, such logic
represents nothing but the structure of human thought and
knowledge. (012)
PH: I could not disagree more. This passage is full
of basic misunderstandings. Formal semantics means
semantics done formally, not a semantics of something
'unreal' because it is 'formal' in nature. The universe
of discourse of a (formal) logic, according to the usual
(formal) semantics, is not "logical objects and processes"
(whatever they are) but is some set of things. Any set of
things will do, and they can be abstract, imaginary, real or
concrete. The theory is completely agnostic concerning the
nature of these things in the universe. They are not required
to be "constructs". They are not restricted to things that are
"logical" in nature. Nothing in any part of the metatheory,
semantics, philosophy, engineering or history of modern logic
even slightly suggests that logics do not apply to reasoning
about entities in the real world. All logic [*] is 'reality
oriented', although it might be better to say 'reality
orientable'. (013)
CM: I know I'm not the best person to make this recommendation,
but everyone ought to print off the above quote and hang it
over their desks. :-) (014)
CM: The idea that formal logic is somehow about "formal objects"
and is at best only loosely connected to the real world is
a persistent canard that is utterly unhinged from the actual
history of the subject -- ancient (Aristotle invented formal
logic, after all) no less than modern. (015)
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o
inquiry e-lab: http://stderr.org/pipermail/inquiry/
「iare: http://www.centiare.com/Directory:Jon_Awbrey
getwiki: http://www.getwiki.net/-UserTalk:Jon_Awbrey
zhongwen wp: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jon_Awbrey
http://www.altheim.com/ceryle/wiki/Wiki.jsp?page=JonAwbrey
wp review: http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showuser=398
o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o~~~~~~~~~o (016)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (017)