[FRIAM] An Overview of Dark Matter – Sasha Manu – Medium

[uǝlƃ ☣]

I hate that use of the word with as much passion as I hate the (modern) use of methodology.  I cringe every time I read some simulation paper or see a talk where they use "methodologies".  Ugh.  What in hell's wrong with "methods"?  Why do those blasted kids have to abuse language so badly?  Get off my lawn!

I get especially annoyed with "ontologies" when the person I'm talking to fails to understand their "ontology"  can be automatically translated to another "ontology" with things like XSLT.  And when we can (semi-automatically) parallax several "ontologies" so as to find out how much one covers another or which one is more general than the others, which have the same network but different terms, etc. perhaps to land on one that's more stable and useful, what are we then _doing_?!?!  What do we call that discipline if not _ontology_?!?! [sigh]  But it's directly related to the other thread, of course.  Why can't we call both the set of concepts *and* statements about the set of concepts by the same name?

On 12/27/18 9:21 AM, Owen Densmore wrote:
> I was reading a science article which used "ontology" in a way I was not
> familiar with.
> 
> https://medium.com/@sasha.manu95/an-overview-of-dark-matter-9aa5d024d65d
> 
>> One of the oldest projects in science involves constructing a fundamental
>> ontology.
> 
> 
> So I Googled "ontology" and got a definition along with a graph of usage
> over time!
> 
> So apparently their use was the second, the "spanning set" of concepts
> within a field .. maybe primarily scientific/technical.


-- 
☣ uǝlƃ