Talk:Foundation ontology

message: And it's possible that it won't.  What has this have to do with foundation ontology
::It is possible that nuclear weapons proliferation or some form of biological warfare technology could alter the consensus regarding physics and its foundation position in the sciences.  In 2002 controversies and acrimony over the "censoring of science" useful to "terrorists" have emerged.  Some consider this a threat to the objectivity of science itself.
::Most scientists consider this a remote possibility.  But political factors, and reliance on a small number of similarly-constructured experimental apparatus has been an issue in science since Galileo, when the Moons of Jupiter were considered by some to be possibly be an artifact of the optics of the telescope.  Theories that are only empirically tested by a small elite community in control of its funding and peer review, and closely controlled by authority, have historically been scientifically suspect.
-----
I'm getting frustrated here.....
::Some anti-reductionists are concerned with cognitive bias, e.g. observer effects, and hold that the ontology should be composed of inclusion and exclusion operations, rather than of the objects included and excluded, e.g. a quantum physicist observing an entanglement must do so indirectly, keeping careful track of the observation timings, as they alter the particles seen!
ARRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!
There is a interesting debate within the physics community over the
fundamental nature of the universe.  I'm trying to explain what the
debate is over in NPOV terms.  Someone who clearly doesn't know 
what the debate is about, keeps changing that section and attributing
views and issues which are not what the physicists are arguing over.
----
I have issues with the first statement.  It seems to imply that there
is a cultural group out there with no scientists in it.  
The second sentence also has problems.  Define deep.  Deep to whom?
::However, no foundation ontology seems to be universally accepted by all peoples.  The field of ethno-mathematics? is the most rigorous study of the variations, especially as understood by indigenous peoples.  But the deepest empirical investigations follow the Western rational scientific method:
-----
I also have extremely big problems with the term *Western* rational scientific 
method.  One could get into a big argument over whether science
started in the West, but I strongly object to the notion that
it is a *Western* mode of thought now.  After all, Chinese and
Japanese people have won Nobel prizes in physics.
-----
Can't one apply a Gödel-like argument to the statement "a foundation ontology is not provable" and conclude that foundation ontologies must be incomplete.  If so, then what's all this fuss?  The topic is a dead end street. -- Olof
----
Taking an engineering view .... approximations are extremely useful in staying on the leading edge of better approximations that are useful in various human activities such as technology, propaganda, warfare, education, etc.
The topic, even if called something else is a dead end street only for those who do not evolve useful ontologies.
For example: perhaps I should go start a series of articles on useful worldviews and start my own school of thought .... solution domain elements .... set theory ..... something .... then I could begin on my Wikipedia biography documenting myself as someone useful to have had around in the early 21st Century .... or I can join the fray over ontology .... decisions ... decisions ...  user:mirwin
---- 
As it became clear that theology could vary drastically in all aspects except foundation ontology, a philosophy of science evolved to explain this stability
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say "metaphysics" istead of "theology"?
----
Finally, I'm going to weigh in on this (to me) bizarre article.  I've studied ontology a fair bit (in the good old fashioned philosophical sense of the term), both historical and contemporary, and I have never heard the term "foundation ontology" used by philosophers before.  I see from this Google search that the phrase "foundation ontology" sometimes appears in connection to this computer science project and some other technical projects.  But that's clearly not the sense in which "24" was using "foundation ontology"; he was using it as if it were a well-accepted, oft-used term in philosophy.  As far as I know, it ain't.
I suspect this is an attempt at a new coinage, by someone who knows just enough philosophy to sound slightly plausible to non-philosophers, and that it really belongs in the garbage can.  Does anyone have strong opinions otherwise?
By no means am I suggesting that we simply toss it out without further consideration.  I agree with everyone who says that deleting articles must be done slowly and prudently, and we should take care to preserve all useful content.  I suspect some of the physics content might belong in a physics or philosophy of physics article (I just don't know enough to give reliable advice on that).  But as for the term and the definition of it, and the casting of an issue in terms of this term, I think "24" more or less pulled a fast one on yez.  :-/  --Larry Sanger
:Yeah, I think this is just the intellectual detritus of our anonymous friend, and can be removed with little controversy now.  --LDC
Larry, I agree with you. I studied philosophy too, and this article looks like largely nonsense to me. A hotch-potch of some dubious and not very closely related ideas, under a heading I've not heard of before (other than in computer science). I'd be happy for most of this article to go, except possibly for an explanation of foundation ontology in the computer science sense - though that would be little more than a dictionary definition and is probably covered adequately in the Ontology (computer science) article. Ben Finn 20:24, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is discussed further in the article on foundations of mathematics.
No it's not, at least not explicitly.  The word "ontology" does not appear there.  Is someone here knowledgable enough to work it in in a congenial and appropriate manner?  Otherwise, should that sentence change to a mere "see also:"?  GTBacchus 19:08, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsorted text

message: Since this article has hardly been touched for 3 years, I cut all of the stuff below which looks spurious - like rather dubious "original research". From a bit of a search I couldn't find anything much on the Internet about 'foundation ontology' in these cosmological senses, other than endless references to this article! Ben Finn 20:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious stuff cut today 

message: The article says: ...attempts to describe those general entities that do not belong to a specific problem domain (emphasis on 'not' added).
Should that instead say it describes those items that do belong? RJFJR 20:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: I don't know if there is such a thing as a foundation ontology but I know there are foundational ontologies... and there is a nice piece of info on the web about them (simply google for it). So maybe the discussion has to be reconsidered with foundational ontologies rather than foundation ontologies.
 
LaurentPrevot 07:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundation or Foundational?