Editing Ontology (section)

== Methods ==
[[Philosophical methodology|Methods]] of ontology are ways of conducting ontological inquiry and deciding between competing theories. There is no single standard method; the diverse approaches are studied by [[metaontology]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Effingham|2013|loc=§ Methodology: Metaontology}} | {{harvnb|Berto|Plebani|2015|p=2}} }}</ref>

[[Conceptual analysis]] is a method to understand ontological concepts and clarify their meaning.<ref>{{harvnb|Thomasson|2012|pp=175–176}}</ref> It proceeds by analyzing their component parts and the [[necessary and sufficient conditions]] under which a concept applies to an entity.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Garcia-Godinez|2023|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=aXjEEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA189 189–192]}} | {{harvnb|Shaffer|2015|pp=[https://www.jstor.org/stable/26602327 555–556]}} }}</ref> This information can help ontologists decide whether a certain type of entity, such as numbers, exists.<ref>{{harvnb|Garcia-Godinez|2023|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=aXjEEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA186 186, 188–189]}}</ref> [[Eidetic variation]] is a related method in [[Phenomenology (philosophy)|phenomenological]] ontology that aims to identify the essential features of different types of objects. Phenomenologists start by imagining an example of the investigated type. They proceed by varying the imagined features to determine which ones cannot be changed, meaning they are essential.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Drummond|2022|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=VQ9hEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA75 75]}} | {{harvnb|Ryckman|2005|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=FI1JCAAAQBAJ&pg=PA142 142–144]}} }}</ref>{{efn|For example, it is essential for a triangle to have three sides since it ceases to be a triangle if a fourth side is added.<ref>{{harvnb|Spear|loc=§ 3. Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy: The Perceptual Noema}}</ref>}} The [[Transcendental arguments|transcendental]] method begins with a simple observation that a certain entity exists. In the following step, it studies the ontological repercussions of this observation by examining how it is possible or which [[condition of possibility|conditions]] are required for this entity to exist.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Gabriel|2011|pp=ix-x}} | {{harvnb|Körner|1984|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=eAA4AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA183 183–184]}} | {{harvnb|Pihlström|2009|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=srGLpb7pWdkC&pg=PA60 60–61]}} }}</ref>

Another approach is based on [[intuition]]s in the form of non-inferential impressions about the correctness of general principles.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Daly|2015|pp=[https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1057/9781137344557_1 11–12]}} | {{harvnb|Berto|Plebani|2015|p=35}} }}</ref> These principles can be used as the [[Axiom|foundation]] on which an ontological system is built and expanded using [[deductive reasoning]].<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Goldenbaum|loc=Lead Section, § 1. The Geometrical Method}} | {{harvnb|Leuenberger|2017|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=uBBADwAAQBAJ&pg=PT57 57]}} }}</ref> A further intuition-based method relies on [[thought experiment]]s to evoke new intuitions. This happens by imagining a situation relevant to an ontological issue and then employing [[counterfactual thinking]] to assess the consequences of this situation.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Tahko|2015|pp=177–178}} | {{harvnb|Robinson|2004|pp=537–538, 541–542}} | {{harvnb|Brown|Fehige|2019|loc=Lead Section}} | {{harvnb|Goffi|Roux|2011|pp=[https://philpapers.org/rec/GOFOTV 165, 168–169]}} }}</ref> For example, some ontologists examine the relation between mind and matter by imagining [[philosophical zombies|creatures identical to humans but without consciousness]].<ref>{{harvnb|Kirk|2023|loc=Lead Section, § 2. Zombies and Physicalism}}</ref>

[[Naturalism (philosophy)#Methodological naturalism|Naturalistic methods]] rely on the insights of the natural sciences to determine what exists.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Berto|Plebani|2015|p=3}} | {{harvnb|Ney|2014|pp=30–31}} | {{harvnb|Van Inwagen|Sullivan|Bernstein|2023|loc=§ 4. The Methodology of Metaphysics}} }}</ref> According to an influential approach by [[Willard Van Orman Quine]], ontology can be conducted by analyzing{{efn|An essential step in Quine's analysis is to translate the theory into [[first-order logic]] to make its ontological assumptions explicit.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Ney|2014|pp=40–41}} | {{harvnb|Göhner|Steinbrink|2018|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=FuBLDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA48 48]}} }}</ref>}} the ontological commitments of scientific theories. This method is based on the idea that scientific theories provide the most reliable description of reality and that their power can be harnessed by investigating the ontological assumptions underlying them.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Ney|2014|pp=37–38, 40–43}} | {{harvnb|Van Inwagen|Sullivan|Bernstein|2023|loc=§ 4. The Methodology of Metaphysics}} | {{harvnb|Vineberg|2013|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=0NJavSp-DbwC&pg=PA133 133]}} }}</ref>

[[File:Guillaume Occam.jpg|thumb|upright=.8|alt=Portrait of William of Ockham|[[William of Ockham]] proposed [[Ockham's Razor]], a principle to decide between competing theories.]]

Principles of theory choice offer guidelines for assessing the advantages and disadvantages of ontological theories rather than guiding their construction.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Effingham|2013|loc=§ Methodology: Theory choice}} | {{harvnb|Göhner|Steinbrink|2018|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=FuBLDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA57 57–58]}} }}</ref> The principle of [[Ockham's Razor]] says that simple theories are preferable.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Ney|2014|pp=48–49}} | {{harvnb|Jacquette|2014|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=NmPfBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA207 207–208]}} }}</ref> A theory can be simple in different respects, for example, by using very few basic types or by describing the world with a small number of fundamental entities.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Effingham|2013|loc=§ Methodology: Ontological parsimony}} | {{harvnb|Brenner|2024|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=L3n1EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA20 20–21]}} | {{harvnb|Göhner|Steinbrink|2018|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=FuBLDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA58 58]}} }}</ref> Ontologists are also interested in the explanatory power of theories and give preference to theories that can explain many observations.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Effingham|2013|loc=§ Methodology: Ontological parsimony}} | {{harvnb|Göhner|Steinbrink|2018|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=FuBLDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA59 59]}} }}</ref> A further factor is how close a theory is to [[common sense]]. Some ontologists use this principle as an argument against theories that are very different from how ordinary people think about the issue.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Effingham|2013|loc=§ Methodology: Coherence with Intuitions}} | {{harvnb|Berto|Plebani|2015|p=35}} }}</ref>

In applied ontology, [[ontological engineering]] is the process of creating and refining conceptual models of specific domains.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Grenon|2008|p=70}} | {{harvnb|Gómez-Pérez|Fernández-López|Corcho|2006|pp=v, 195}} | {{harvnb|Fernández-López|Gómez-Pérez|2002|p=129}} }}</ref> Developing a new ontology from scratch involves various preparatory steps, such as delineating the scope of the domain one intends to model and specifying the purpose and use cases of the ontology. Once the foundational concepts within the area have been identified, ontology engineers proceed by defining them and characterizing the relations between them. This is usually done in a [[formal language]] to ensure precision and, in some cases, automatic [[computability]]. In the following review phase, the validity of the ontology is assessed using test data.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Kendall|McGuinness|2022|pp=47–49}} | {{harvnb|Gómez-Pérez|Fernández-López|Corcho|2006|pp=109–110}} }}</ref> Various more specific instructions for how to carry out the different steps have been suggested. They include the [[Cyc]] method, Grüninger and Fox's methodology, and so-called METHONTOLOGY.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Gómez-Pérez|Fernández-López|Corcho|2006|pp=153, 195}} | {{harvnb|Babkin|Ulitin|2024|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=A37lEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA28 28]}} | {{harvnb|Fernández-López|Gómez-Pérez|2002|p=129}} }}</ref> In some cases, it is feasible to adapt a pre-existing ontology to fit a specific domain and purpose rather than creating a new one from scratch.<ref>{{multiref | {{harvnb|Gómez-Pérez|Fernández-López|Corcho|2006|pp=112–113}} | {{harvnb|Fernández-López|Gómez-Pérez|2002|p=129}} }}</ref>