> >
> > Leaving aside administrative domains (e.g. tax collection), types,
> > like instances, are discovered. They are out there in reality. They
> > form the subject-matter of scientific inquiry.
>
>MW: Well I would say that there is an abundance of sets out there and
>some of them have greater significance than others. (01)
Interesting to find out why some have greater significance than others ... (02)
>BS> Quine used to talk about desert landscapes. You, it seems, are pining
> > for desert landscapes from which all traces of the biological have
> > been eliminated (even, I suppose, the oil and gas underneath).
>
>MW: Quite the reverse, I am saying there is every possible set you can
>imagine (and probably more) and that you are just identifying some as
>useful for some purpose. (03)
Analogously there is every possible combination of human bodily
parts; there is Matthew's nose plus John's legs plus Patrick's feet
(etc.); Patrick's nose plus Leo's legs plus Chris's feet (etc.);
Matthew's nose plus Matthew's legs plus Matthew's feet (etc.). And
all have equal civil rights, but you are just identifying some as
useful for some purpose. (04)
This is silly. (05)
> >
> > >MW: My problem now is that I understand that you want types to be
> > >restricted to things like rabbits, not "people with 376
> > hairs on their
> > >arms" or "4, the moon, and me". Now, whilst I am sympathetic
> > >to the idea of natural kinds, it seems to me that these
> > three examples
> > >actually sit in a spectrum and there is no clear divide between them
> > >(though these three being prototypical can be easily distinguished).
> >
> > There are many terms for which we have clear examples of entities
> > which fall under them, clear examples of entities which do not fall
> > under them, and then a penumbra of problematic cases in between.
> > Responses to this problem for 'type' might be:
> >
> > 1. it is hard work to find out which types exist (this work is called
> > 'science') (BS)
> > 2. we should refrain from formulating axioms about what is a type (JS)
> > 3. 'type' is redundant; we should talk of sets instead, keeping our
> > heads under the desert sand to avoid all sight e.g. of
> > anything biological (MW)
>
>MW: Well as usual you indulge in gross misrepresentation when all else
>fails.
>
>MW: In a 4D world I am happy to concede that there will be a set of sets
>that corresponds to what you would refer to as types. (With an abundance
>of sets of course its there). In your 3D world you seem to need these
>things to be able to have varying membership over time. That is simply
>a problem I don't have. (06)
Indeed. I take it that you when were doing arithmetic tests in
school, your answer would always have the form: "There is an
abundance of numbers out there, one of which is the correction
solution to this problem."
BS (07)
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-dev/
>To Post: mailto:ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
>http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-dev/
>Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
>Community Wiki:
>http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-dev/
To Post: mailto:ontac-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config: http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-dev/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (09)
|