>> IKL is a logical language (well, a class of logical languages) for
>> representing declarative information rigorously.  Like standard
>> first-order logic, it is not a "tool" in the sense of, say, Protege that
>> comes with built-in mechanisms for representing and reasoning upon
>> class hierarchies and the like that might help one to think about and
>> formalize the structure of information in a specific domain.  (I take
>> it you envision mKR as a tool in this sense as well, its lack of both
>> a semantics and an underlying reasoning mechanism notwithstanding.)
 

Richard H. McCullough wrote:
> I consider any language to be a tool for thinking.

Fine, but it seems to me that that pretty much reduces the notion of a
"tool" to triviality.  Typically, a tool is something that facilitates
an activity, something that speeds it along or helps to make one
better at it, rather than something that simply makes that activity
possible.  In your sense, a language is also a tool for, say, writing
great speeches.  That said, I suppose a *logical* language like IKL
facilitates thinking a *bit*, simply because casting propositions into
a logical form itself brings rigor and clarity that is sometimes
lacking in natural language.   

Richard H. McCullough wrote:

> I put IKL in the class of languages like Prolog.

Well, you shouldn't.  More evidence of the striking gaps in your
knowledge of fundamental issues.

Chris Menzel