Cory and Azamat, (01)
Your two most recent notes illustrate the debates between
nominalists and realists. Those are important philosophical
debates, and I side with the realists. (02)
However, I also agree with the realist Charles Sanders Peirce
that any detailed statement about the underlying realities
is fallible. That doesn't mean that they're all false. In
fact, he explicitly said that a very large number of things
we believe to be true are very likely true within the limits
to which we have tested them. (03)
However, we can never be certain how far any such statements
can be generalized beyond the range of conditions that have
been tested. That is why (at least for the purpose of getting
something done in the short term) that I propose we adopt an
agnostic position that does not require a resolution of the
centuries-old debates between nominalists and realists. (04)
When I doubt, I have recommended an agnostic position for
the core, while leaving more detailed commitments to the
hubs or the optional modules. (05)
John Sowa (06)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://colab.cim3.net/forum/ontac-forum/
To Post: mailto:ontac-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subscribe/Unsubscribe/Config:
http://colab.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontac-forum/
Shared Files: http://colab.cim3.net/file/work/SICoP/ontac/
Community Wiki:
http://colab.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?SICoP/OntologyTaxonomyCoordinatingWG (07)
|