Devil's advocate for why ontology is meaningless and vacuous.

[robvalue]

I'll just go ahead and throw my stuff in again:

The way I see it, there are two main ways we relate to reality, in order to inform our decisions. We measure (or estimate measurements) and we value. The first is an attempt to gain factual information, close enough that it is fit for purpose. We choose the method by which we measure. We should all expect to get pretty much the same answer using this method, for any particular measurement, if done correctly.

Valuation is a much more complex procedure. Even if they wanted to, I doubt the average person could put their value systems into a neat method for others to reproduce without grossly oversimplifying. Also, they are highly dynamic. In order for any kind of valuation to become "objective", a method must be agreed. Clearly there is no problem agreeing methods for measurement. We just want information, in ways we can process it. But the whole point of valuation is that we all have different methods. It's the methods that make it subjective. Of course, you could just create a method, like you create a way of measuring length. But it's of no practical use, because the results don't help anyone make decisions unless they happen to agree with that value system. In such a case, they are already using it, so...