Nor is ontology limited to things. Relationships, numbers… there are many examples of being that is not things. When you study what is you are studying nature. Then you begin to study ontology. Physics is not metaphysics, nature is not supernatural, sensory is not extrasensory. YOU: The scope of ontology can be generalised from philosophy to other fields like medicine, information science or even advanced physics. ME: You cannot generalize from philosophy to other fields.
In fact philosophy is the most general field and all other fields specialize. But ontology is not just the generalization of nature. It involves a leap beyond nature to existence or being. YOU: Ontology helps us to understand questions like what is God, what is a disease, what happens after death, what is artificial intelligence etc.
ME: The first is theology not ontology, the second is medicine not ontology, the third assumes there is something that happens after death which is a kind of contradiction in terms for if something happens after death then death has not yet occurred. You need to understand death and time better. The last is computer science not ontology. YOU: Ontology also studies how various existing entities can be grouped together on the basis of similar characteristics and it tries to find out those similarities.
ME: That is taxonomy and it is not necessarily ontology. For example in biology there is a taxonomy of life that includes a description of the various kingdoms phylum and species etc. That is not ontology.
YOU: The field also tries to find a relation between the objects that exist. ME: The fact that the moon orbits the earth is a relation of position between the too but that is a natural physical relationship not an ontological one.
You really have not even an undergraduate understanding of ontology. Have you ever taken even one good course in it? If not you should not confuse people like this. Name required. Email required. Please note: comment moderation is enabled and may delay your comment. There is no need to resubmit your comment. In the article, we use a case of deforestation in rainforests to demonstrate how different positions can influence the nature of the research questions and outcomes, including the assumptions that will be made.
Therefore, our guide represents just one example of how the elements i. We recognize that by distilling and defining the elements in a simplified way we have necessarily constrained argument and debate surrounding each element. Furthermore, the guide had to have some structure. In forming this structure, we do not suggest that researchers must consider first their ontological and then their epistemological position and so on; they may well begin by exploring their philosophical perspective.
Often researchers pick and choose between a range of options that will allow them to define and answer their research questions in a way that makes most sense to them. All ontologies, epistemologies, and philosophical perspectives are characterized by this pluralism, including the prevailing post positivist approach of the natural sciences. Thus, scientists do not necessarily commit to one philosophical perspective and all associated characteristics Bietsa We tried to anticipate concerns that scholars of philosophy might have with our rather reductionist approach, but felt that the more important contribution to make was to bring attention to alternative worldviews, and highlight the importance of philosophy in generating any type of knowledge.
With respect to the characterization of epistemologies, we adopted a continuum provided by Crotty that focuses on the relationship between the subject and the object. Again, this choice was made on the basis of our audience, to demonstrate that different types of relationship can exist between subject and object. Selected excerpts below. Gabriele Bammer: Thanks Adam for raising the alarm.
Non-philosophers are hungry for a version of epistemology, ontology etc that they can understand and use and this blog post and the paper it is based on address this need. I appreciate that time is an issue for everyone — anything you can do will be appreciated. Machiel Keestra: Although I agree that the blog post should perhaps not so much be taken to offer a current representation of the main positions in philosophy of science or about the interconnections between epistemological and ontological positions, I think it does a nice job in offering a conversation piece: what are relevant positions and options that people might -implicitly— take and how are they different from other positions.
Given the modest ambitions of the authors, I think that is a fair result. Lovely work! Thank you. I think I might use this paper as a discussion paper in our department as I think it is crucial for interdisciplinarians to understand these issues.
Kia ora Katie and Debbie, great post! Your table is a really useful aid to this — I immediately sent it to all my colleagues! It also makes it clearer to me how I can use the concept of triangulation that Bruce alluded to in his reply. So thank you for explaining so concisely. Thanks, Melissa. Thank you for that discussion. In my own research practice, I am not committed to any one particular philosophical theory or perspective. Hence the attraction, for me, of the application of a multiplicity of methods, approaches and philosophical perspectives — as and when they seem able to give ontological or epistemological insight — with triangulation between the results of the disparate approaches as the temporary arbiter of an evolving meaning and truth.
This might be considered a pragmatic, perhaps even an opportunistic, approach to conducting science. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. Deborah Blackman biography Understanding philosophy is important because social science research can only be meaningfully interpreted when there is clarity about the decisions that were taken that affect the research outcomes.
What are the 3 models of epistemology? What is an example of epistemology? What is epistemology in simple words? What questions does epistemology ask? What is meant by epistemology? How do you use epistemology in a sentence? What is another word for epistemology? What are the two major types of knowledge? Can you have wisdom without knowledge? What are the three central questions of epistemology? What is the aim of epistemology?
What is the point of epistemology? What are the key elements of a proper epistemology? What is modern epistemology? Who is the father of epistemology?
What is an epistemological question? What is an epistemological argument? What are epistemological beliefs? What is an ontological belief? What is an epistemic state? Can we know anything for certain? What are the five sources of knowledge? How do you know something is true?
What do we mean when we say something is true? Previous Article How do you define explication? Next Article How do you start a history essay?
0コメント