Re: URIs

I would suggest that both natural language *and* ontologies are views
of (possibly shallow) underlying knowledge.  This knowledge is
difficult to characterize.  It is also difficult to achieve agreement
on it within or across communities.

I find the following study sobering.  Don't be misled by the term
"folk".  Today's science is tomorrow's folk science.

 - Bob Futrelle
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract
Cognitive Science: A Multidisciplinary Journal
2002, Vol. 26, No. 5, Pages 521-562
(doi:10.1207/s15516709cog2605_1)

The misunderstood limits of folk science: an illusion of explanatory depth

Leonid Rozenblit​‌ - Department of Psychology, Yale University
Frank Keil​‌ - Department of Psychology, Yale University

People feel they understand complex phenomena with far greater
precision, coherence, and depth than they really do; they are subject
to an illusion—an illusion of explanatory depth. The illusion is far
stronger for explanatory knowledge than many other kinds of knowledge,
such as that for facts, procedures or narratives. The illusion for
explanatory knowledge is most robust where the environment supports
real-time explanations with visible mechanisms. We demonstrate the
illusion of depth with explanatory knowledge in Studies 1–6. Then we
show differences in overconfidence about knowledge across different
knowledge domains in Studies 7–10. Finally, we explore the mechanisms
behind the initial confidence and behind overconfidence in Studies 11
and 12, and discuss the implications of our findings for the roles of
intuitive theories in concepts and cognition. (c) 2002 Leonid
Rozenblit. Published by Cognitive Science Society, Inc. All rights
reserved.

Received on Monday, 19 June 2006 21:12:06 UTC