Elsewhere, I explicate the three aspects of METALANGUAGE:. To popularize these notions (drawing upon the popularity of the secnd one below), I formulated "three friends" and questions they raise:
- ONTOOOGY: The explication of WHAT IS REAL;
- EPISTEMOLGY: The explication of WHAT WE CAN KNOW;
- AXIOLOGY: The xplication of WHAT IS OF VALUE.
In another file ONLLINE, I note the importance of the distinction between ONTOLOGY and EPISTOMOLOGY. This involved what many physicists regard as the most fascinating debate of 20th Century Physics between Albert Einstein and Neil Bohr (whose model of the atom helped to initiate QUANTUM THEORY.) This debate concerned the use of PROBABILITY THEORY, whose BASIC EQUATION IS SOLVED FOR THE PROABABILITY OF SOME EVENT.
- "What's REAL, Neal?"
- "Whaddya KNOW, Joe?"
- "What's GOOD, Wood".
Saying, "God does not place dice!", Einstein argued that the use of PROABILITIES in QUANTUM THEORY was only due to CURRENT LIMITATIONS IN OUR KNOWLEDGE, which might be to HIDDEN CAUSAL VARIABLES in basic phenomena, and the PROBABILITIES would be replaced. Hence, Einstein was saying that QUANTUM PROBABILITIES ARE EPISTEMIC.
Bohr, in counterargument, said QUANTUM PROBABILITIES are ONTOLOGICAL, in the way we rekate if NATURE, hence cannot be eliminated.
Today, most physicists agree believe that Einstein was incorrect and that Bohr was correct, for the following amazing reason.
Einstein formulated a "thought-experiment" which would involve creation and separation of "twin" phenomena such that changing the SPIN of one changes the SPIN of the other, no matter how far away it is. Arguing that this is a consequence of the ONTOLOGICAL interpretation, and that it cannot be true, Einstein thought he had won the debate. But this "thought experiment" has been transformed into actual experiments which confirmed what Einstein though impossible!
Elsewhere, I show how the distinction between ONTOLOGY and EPISTEMOLOGY may concern your medical insurance. It is now possible, from DNA evidence and other protocols to know that some persons are genetically disposed to some disease or impairment. Knowing this, some insurance copanies have cancelled the medical insurance of some clients and refused to ensure other applicants for such arguments. However, the statistics for insurance are not based upon what we know about certain people, but about "what is out there". So, they are using a double standard: collecting data ONTOLOGICALLY, but determining ELIGIBILITY for insurance EPISTEMICALLY. Knowing this, you may be able to present your case.
The role of AXIOLOGY is best seen in the RULE: DO NOT BASE A DECISION ON THE PROBABILITY OF A PROTOTYPICAL EVENT, BUT ON UPON THE PRODUCT OF THE PROBABILITY WITH THE VALUE OR COST OF THE EVENT IF IT OCCURS. Example: In a fair lottery, selling 1000 lottery tickets, the probability of winning is 1/000, Suppose the prize is $500, then the EXPECTATION is (1/1000)&500 = 50 cents.
During the "Vietname Era", Defense Secretary Robert MacNamara (who had been Head og General Motors) violate this RULE in his argument that South Vietname ARVAN soldiers would defeat the Vietcong fomr North Bietnam, since there were ten times as many ARVAN soldiers as Vietcong . But some one noted, "What happens if those 10 ARVAN soldiers won't fight, and that one Vietcong fights like hell?"
To project the aspect of misusing these Metalnaguistic triad, I invert the names I cited above, for "The Three Stooges of STRATEGY":Canyou extend this explication?
- LEAN: mistakes UNREAL STRATEGIES FOR REAL, or REAL STRATEGIES FOR UNREAL.
- OEJ: believes we KNOW STRATEGICALLY what we don't know; or that we don't know what we actually do KNOW.
- DOOW: EITHER MISVALUES AN EVENT OR IGNORES ITS VALUE (as MacNamara did).