[Air-l] Origin of the term "Internet"

[James Whyte]

  I am speaking to biases created by definitional boundaries. I might add that it parallels your admonition for others to define their terms in a recent posting. If I might paraphrase: "Natural", "occuring" and "conflicts" impose different inferences (sanctioned) depending on the definitions used.
   
  James

Ellis Godard <egodard at csun.edu> wrote:
  That seems wrong, or inverted, from the first sentence: Ontological
commitments may be opinionated, conventionalized, fashionable, or stylized.
But opinion, convention, fashion, and style could as easily be
epistegmological, theoretical, methodological, or practical as ontological.

-eg


> -----Original Message-----
> From: air-l-bounces at listserv.aoir.org [mailto:air-l-
> bounces at listserv.aoir.org] On Behalf Of James Whyte
> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2007 7:33 AM
> To: air-l at listserv.aoir.org
> Subject: Re: [Air-l] Origin of the term "Internet"
> 
> In my opinion, conventions, fashion or styles are ontological
> commitments and carry with them sanctioned inferences. Just as social
> norms are products of committed reasoning. The premise, as originally
> stated, is that if you define the Internet narrowly (my form 1) social
> domains are not considered. The second form, less narrow, opens
> consideration to more options. Form 1 is a pronoun; form 2 is a common
> noun. I don't stand alone in this view. It is suggested in Davis,
> Shrobe and Szolovits AI Magazine, 14(1):17-33 as inference and is also
> supported by Sapir, Wharf and others in linguistics. I can provide a
> larger bibliography if your intent is not pugnacious. On the other hand
> Google Scholar produces thousands of parallel offerings. The richest
> sources come from discourse on Knowledge Representation (KR).
> 
> To get there one has to take a trans-disciplinary view ; which allows
> one to easily move across the boundaries.
> 
> 
> Jeremy Hunsinger wrote:
> all I'm requesting is that you provide some evidence that the
> ontological commitments that you assert exist and are not commitments
> based on convention, possibly as style or fashion. either you can,
> or you can't. if you can't, then your assertions are merely your
> own, perfectly fine for what they are, but not really capable of
> sustaining a broader position.
> On Mar 31, 2007, at 10:56 PM, James Whyte wrote:
> 
> > Very weak!
> 
> _______________________________________________
> The air-l at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
> 
> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> http://www.aoir.org/
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------
> Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
> Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.
> _______________________________________________
> The air-l at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
> is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
> Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at:
> http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org
> 
> Join the Association of Internet Researchers:
> http://www.aoir.org/

_______________________________________________
The air-l at listserv.aoir.org mailing list
is provided by the Association of Internet Researchers http://aoir.org
Subscribe, change options or unsubscribe at: http://listserv.aoir.org/listinfo.cgi/air-l-aoir.org

Join the Association of Internet Researchers: 
http://www.aoir.org/


 
---------------------------------
Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate
in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A.