Ontologies As Systems • Comment 1

Re: Ontolog ForumJoseph Simpson

The reason I’ve been maintaining an interdisciplinary perspective in my postings to the Ontolog Forum, Structural Modeling, and Systems Science groups is because each one stresses a distinct but necessary aspect of a systems approach to scientific inquiry.  I see much potential to be had in integrating these views of the inquiry process, but it will take a lot more thought and work to fully develop that potential.

The feature that jumps out at me as I scan the discussions on this thread — and I’ve said this before about most of the discussions of systems I’ve seen in these groups — is the static nature of the pictures of systems people are laying out.  Whereas, for me, my whole reason for taking up a systems approach to inference, information, inquiry, along with the symbol systems we use to conduct their transactions, is to tease out the shape and flow and dynamics of their transformations.

cc: Systems ScienceStructural ModelingOntolog Forum

This entry was posted in C.S. Peirce, Cybernetics, Inquiry, Inquiry Driven Systems, Inquiry Into Inquiry, Intelligent Systems, Knowledge Bases, Knowledge Representation, Learning, Logic, Peirce, Reasoning, Semiotics, Sign Relations, Systems Theory and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.