- #1
marlon
- 3,792
- 11
Hello, everyone...
This is my first post here and i need your philosophy-help. I know the standard (you know àlla Wikipedia) definitions of ontology and epistemology. What i need to know is if my example is right here. Please feel free to comment as much as you want.
In ontology you can give a definition for some concept because it "is" what it "is". I mean gravity is defined in this way, since physics does NOT explain where gravity comes from it just describes how it works and what laws this phenomenon "seems" to follow.
in epistemology you can give a definition to some concept via formula's, for example like the way Newton introduced the concept of "force" : F =ma. This definition is backed up by experimental evidence. So this definition is "proven"
Finally can i see that definitions in ontology are given to things based upon the fact that they "are" what they seem to be. These definition do not explain WHY this thing is what it is...
In epistemology you give definitions based upon some logic proof like the diverse laws in physics...
Is this correct...Keep in mind that i primarily want to describe the difference between ontology and epistemology via the gravity-example...
regards
marlon
This is my first post here and i need your philosophy-help. I know the standard (you know àlla Wikipedia) definitions of ontology and epistemology. What i need to know is if my example is right here. Please feel free to comment as much as you want.
In ontology you can give a definition for some concept because it "is" what it "is". I mean gravity is defined in this way, since physics does NOT explain where gravity comes from it just describes how it works and what laws this phenomenon "seems" to follow.
in epistemology you can give a definition to some concept via formula's, for example like the way Newton introduced the concept of "force" : F =ma. This definition is backed up by experimental evidence. So this definition is "proven"
Finally can i see that definitions in ontology are given to things based upon the fact that they "are" what they seem to be. These definition do not explain WHY this thing is what it is...
In epistemology you give definitions based upon some logic proof like the diverse laws in physics...
Is this correct...Keep in mind that i primarily want to describe the difference between ontology and epistemology via the gravity-example...
regards
marlon