W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2008

Re: Why do you want to do that?

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 10:28:45 -0700
Message-Id: <p0623092cc4c7765ae2b2@[4.246.36.83]>
To: "Richard H. McCullough" <rhm@pioneerca.com>
Cc: Denny Vrande„iÁ <dvr@aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de>, "Semantic Web at W3C" <semantic-web@w3.org>, "KR-language" <KR-language@YahooGroups.com>
At 7:09 AM -0700 8/12/08, Richard H. McCullough wrote:
>Hi Denny
>Thanks for your input.
>See below for my response.

....

>2. My ultimate source of definitions is the "unit" and "concept" of
>Ayn Rand (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology).
>I guess I should "shut up" and refer you to Ayn Rand.
>She has a knack for clear explanations; I do not.
>I do have a knack for integrating her abstract ideas into
>a practical tool -- the mKR language.

Maybe that is the basic point. Your are a disciple of Rand, and I'm 
not. In fact, I think that her philosophy was simplistic and 
ill-thought-out, her personality was borderline psychotic, and her 
politics deeply immoral. So we should simply agree to disagree, and 
stop arguing.

However, more generally, you must not make the mistake of assuming 
that Rand was in any objective sense correct. Her philosophy is one, 
very idiosyncratic, position, not the final truth. In fact, very few 
professional philosophers take her ideas seriously. So to criticize 
non-Randian logics on the grounds that they disagree with Rand's 
positions (I won't say 'conclusions' because they are little more 
than opinions, unsupported by detailed argument) isn't appropriate or 
correct.

>Rand's unit/concept and OWL's individual/class are, I hope,
>attempts to characterize the same process of human concept formation.

I can't speak for Rand, but that's not true of OWL, which does not 
set out to be a theory of human psychology.

>I have great confidence that Ayn Rand "got it right" when she said
>that units and classes are mutually exclusive (in the same context).
>I think that OWL "got it wrong" when it said they are not.

We know you THINK that. But you havn't given us any ARGUMENT for this 
opinion of yours. I don't think that: and I can DEMONSTRATE that my 
opinion is at least internally consistent. What grounds can you give 
me to change my opinion, other than repeating that you think its 
wrong?

Pat


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC		(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   home
40 South Alcaniz St.	(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32502			(850)291 0667    cell
http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes      phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us
http://www.flickr.com/pathayes/collections
Received on Tuesday, 12 August 2008 17:29:59 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:24 GMT