John Page

No, but I think I understand your viewpoint. Please consider the following viewpoint:

1. "Validity" is not a requirement for something to exist.
2. Validity is a conclusion about a concept reached by one's mind after applying criteria. Simple example, we can conclude that a sentence is false but the sentence (and the proposition it represents) remains in existence.
3. Applying the above to philosophies, the philosophies exist irrespective of whether one regards them as valid.
4. The "real world" is the test of a philosophy. As I suggested above, the epistemology/ontology of a mind will be (at least in part) driven by its physiology. The epistemology/ontology associated with a monkey's thoughts will be different than a cat's, a bat's, a human's etc.
5. Hence, validity itself is a subjective judgement.

Relativism has different flavors, but I believe it can be used to show how the meaning comes to be in our mind, even the concept of existence itself. Do you believe that objects outside you have intrinsic meaning, or do you think that meaning comes from your interpretation of what is "outside of you"?

Cheers, John

John Page

A scientist may do what he/she wishes providing it conforms to scientific method (otherwise they are not a scientist). Scientific method, BTW, argues for relativism because conclusions derived from results are only held to be true for the experiment conducted. Creating the laws of physics, for example, relies on projecting those results to other curcumstances (e.g. at different temperatures). In this sense, the laws of physics are theories/conjecture and not facts, the facts alone are the experimental data.

Yes?

Cheers, John

Feather

Well, in that case, then the choice of ontology is really quite irrelevent, is that not so? Therefore choose "no" ontology.

I see what you're saying, but I fail to see how using light/dark; true/false; or any other criteria expresses an ontological view.

Perhaps I'm just not quite up to date on what "ontology" actually is. My understanding is that "ontology" is the study of the nature of reality and existence (i.e. whether it is subjective or objective; whether it is rational or irrational; perceivable or imperceptible; &c.). That's the basis from which I make my statement that an ontological position is unnecessary to carry out science.

If I were asked "what is the nature of reality?" (definitely an ontological question, if ever there were one) I'd respond, "Why, I don't know." Because I don't. I don't much care, either. What I do know is that experiments yield results. Sometimes the results are comprehendable and sometimes they aren't. Overwhelmingly they are consistent (or if by design they demonstrate an inconsistency--consistently ).

Likewise with the question "What exists?" The question is nonsensical and any answer to it except "I don't know" is completely untestable. I could point around me and say, "This stuff all exists." But a perfectly legitimate philosophical counter might be "How do you know it isn't all made up to fool you?" And that's the rub: I can't tell, and neither can you.

So pontificating on the "underlying nature" of reality and existence is futile and irrelevent.

Well, fair enough. But that's rather like ascribing to any definition the status of a complete philosophical position. Since my premise is that "knowledge exists" by definition, you see. I don't claim to know whether "knowledge exists" in the "really real" sense--I don't even claim it is subjective necessarily. This is all in the context of a philosophical position, mind you. Practically I assert it doesn't really matter.

John Page

I arguing that you have an ontology whether you like it or not. You are possessed of perceptual organs that present data to your conscious *I* in a manner that constitutes knowledge. Do you propose that knowedge comes out of thin air, so to speak?
Not so much an ontological view as the framework for the ontology. Another example; assuming I had no notion of quantity I would not have the ontological framework necessary to have knowledge of addition.
If you subscribe to the notion "science is inexact", then one needs a scientific investigation of why. Part of this investigation has lead to the study of human factors and cognitive theory. One can ignore the ontological question but the result is not knowing how reliable your knowedge is.
My italics to highlight what I perceive as your ontological view! You seem to suggest you know things that are comprehensible to you because they appear consistent.
I think it is you that is pontificating. Surely any reasonable claim to knowledge should be backed up by an explanation how that knowledge comes to be. Tests for existence certainly do exist.
Try these questions: Do you have knowledge? Does the knowledge that you have exist? How did you acquire this knowledge? How is this knowledge stored? What is my resulting ontology?

Cheers, John

Feather

I think only the first question pertains to ontology, and in fact any answer would be an answer based on my particular definition of what "knowledge" is. In this case, of course everybody has an "ontology" in the trivial sense (i.e. nothing is gained by calling it "ontology" or any other term--it's like defining "God" as "everything").

The next three questions are completely epistemological in nature: given the answer to the first question, the next three can be answered by experiment (which is the quintessential epistemological answer I should think).

John Page

Hardly "trivial".

Questions are related to knowledge and, therefore, can be categorized as epistemological in nature.!!!

As I originally pointed out, experimental data is meaningless without an ontology through which it may be interpreted.

We've come full circle, it seems, but I'd be interested in your answers anyway so to debate the underlying ontology which must surely exist, however trivially.

Cheers, John

NialScorva

Sorry I haven't answered you yet. I've been too swamped for anything that requires a degree of thought, like not tripping over my shoes into bed when I get home. I'll post something intelligent (hah! yeah right), when I get a chance.

jpbrooks

This is a very interesting exchange!
Feather's point seems (if I'm not mistaken, please correct me if I am) to be that a ("comprehensive") ontology that provides definitive answers to questions about, for example, the nature of reality is not a requirement for a view that is comprehensive enough to allow for scientific inquiry, since science (ideally) priviledges no specific ontology. This seems true. However, John's point seems to be that the more fundamental issue is that ontological assumptions are necessary in order to make epistemological claims meaningful. For example, if I believe that everything that I think I perceive may not really be there because I could simply be a brain in the vat of some scientist in his/her laboratory, then I cannot possibly be a solipsist because solipsism, as an ontology, would require that I hold that nothing else other than my own existence is real.
So, the issue seems (to me) to be whether the ontological assumptions that are necessary for engaging in scientific inquiry can be said to constitute a ("comprehensive") "Ontology".

I have to run.

Feather

I think I'm still not entirely sure where you're coming from here, JP.

How exactly is it necessary for a person to have any particular ontological view in order for him to also have an epistemological one (or, at least, the epistemology that defines science)?

I think jpbrooks comes fairly close to restating what I mean here.

I'm having an especial difficulty with the notion that mere act of doing anything seems to define an ontological system from your view point. Or at least it seems that way to me. That's why I keep mentioning "trivial."

I don't mean "trivial" in the sense that it's unimportant, I mean "trivial" in the sense as, say, "Zero is the trivial solution to any homogenous differential equation." It's technically true, but "uninteresting" in the sense that it doesn't actually "accomplish" anything not already done.

John Page

I'm not saying that the person in question "has to have any particular ontological view". I'm taking the view that their knowledge is caused and there must be an ontological view as to how their knowledge comes to be (regardless of whether the "knower" has any knowledge of ontology).

Regarding scientists, having collected data, surely making sense of that data is an ontological investigation as to how and why it comes to be.

Thanks for the clarification, my existence may be trivial but its really important to me!

Cheers, John