Epistemology (was Re: Arcs

Hi Patrick,

Didn't mean to lump you in the same boat, necessarily... :)

On 21 Oct 2010, at 2:46 PM, Patrick Durusau wrote:

> Andrew,
> 
> A point where I depart from Murray:
> 
> On Thu, 2010-10-21 at 13:24 +0100, Andrew S. Townley wrote:
> 
> <snip>
> 
>>> I also think it behooves everyone to do a bit of epistemological
>>> homework before jumping head-deep into the pool of modeling. It's
>>> a deep pool and the bottom is littered with the bodies of those
>>> who have gone before us and had no ability to swim. I won't name
>>> names, but as a hint they had lots of DARPA money.
>> 
>> 
>> I'd strongly agree with this as well, however, you're going to have to deal with the collision of "those who know how we know" with "those who know X" and there's a lot more of the latter than there are of the former.  Gets back to the points earlier that you and Patrick raised, but the perfect model is useless if it isn't usable in the wild by real people on a daily basis.  I know you know this, but that's one of the biggest challenges I see in this whole space.  We need stuff for the masses that helps meet the epistemological criteria, and I think we're still a long way from many examples of that kind of system.
>> 
> 
> I spent many happy hours with epistemology texts as an undergraduate,
> mostly Hume, Nietzsche, Husserl, but also others. And I enjoy debating
> that sort of thing.

I am but a neophyte in this area, but I have a vague sense of the vast things I do not yet know... ;)

> However, I am not convinced that we need any models other than the ones
> that users actually use. That is we should assist (to the extent we can
> assist and not be a hindrance) users making explicit the subjects (read
> epistemology) they "see" in the information they handle. 

I actually agree with this too, but the question is "who are the users," isn't it?  And the answer to that question defines the primary context of use of the resulting topic map.

> That some people see "terrorists" lurking in every shadow and under beds
> with no more basis than for believing I am the tooth fairy is neither
> here nor there. Any more that John Sowa seeing Aristotle and Peirce at
> every turn. They are all points of view. 
> 
> It is possible to construct a topic map legend informed by an FOL view
> of the world. 
> 
> It is also possible to construct a topic maps legend not not informed by
> an FOL view of the world.
> 
> Both are legitimate uses of topic maps and the only question is whether
> some user (probably the one paying for their construction), thinks the
> resulting topic maps accurate reflect their view of the world.
> 
> What other test would you use? 
> 
> I suspect that is what attracted me to topic maps in the first place. 

You and me both.  I agree with Murray and yourself that the few ontological constraints of Topic Maps is one of the things that also attracted me to it.  And the examples you mention above are exactly why:  we need technologies that allow users to create information (i.e. data in context) that is meaningful to them.

I guess what I was alluding to was that because Topic Maps has the flexibility to do just what you describe, I think that it's worthwhile to try and allow different views of the same codex in as fluid a manner as possible.  Such approaches can be used to illuminate the insights, understandings and assumptions of different groups of people in a way that's firmly grounded in the ontology/topic maps legend that makes sense to them so people don't feel totally overwhelmed (or worse, stupid).

Therefore, I see a tremendous opportunity in providing the linkages between the "official, hard-line, epistemology" views of the world and the "Hi, I'm Joe.  This is my world" views of the world.  However (and this probably wasn't as clear as it should've been either), to model, design and build the structures and systems to mediate between different world views requires a sufficient level of tying your head in knots (or, understanding more formalistic views).  As Murrary said, many people avoid this because it breaks their toys, or bends their flags or reveals the man behind the curtain managing the boundaries within which their assumptions are valid.

We're in an ever increasingly-connected world spewing forth more physically accessible opinions and information than ever before.  It's one thing to say that Topic Maps without formal (or some level of formal) foundations are useful (and they are), but the problem is that as soon as you share them in a wider context, the result, sadly, can be just more noise.

I just get excited with the possibilities that *IF* you had a way to mediate, correlate and segregate different world views of the same "facts" using a unified system with minimal ontological constraints, then I think it would be even more useful.

Don't get me wrong, most of my models/ontologies aren't overly formal, but I know that and I (mostly) realize where they start to get fuzzy.  I'm not advocating overly formalistic models, legends or ontologies for topic maps.  But, there's gotta be a way to harness the human-ness of the way Joe-average-person-on-the-street thinks about the world for the greater good of the community, whether that community is his real community, his work group, his country or the world.  Small, simple, context-specific islands may be beautiful (and useful), but they're still islands.

> My background (or most recent one anyway) is in biblical studies and
> viewpoints on its primary texts have shifted any number of times in the
> last 3,000 or so years. 
> 
> Topic maps, to me anyway, offer a way to accommodate each of those
> without without having to make choices that exclude other views. 
> 
> Or as Neitzsche was translated as saying (allegedly): "I am not bigoted
> enough for a system. Not even my own." 


I really like that! :)  I think we're all three after similar things, actually, but our backgrounds, perspectives and methods may vary.  Hopefully, they'll work together in some way to create something even better!

Thanks for the comments!

ast
--
Andrew S. Townley <[email protected]>
http://atownley.org